.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Illwinter Game Design > Dominions 3: The Awakening

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 25th, 2009, 03:50 AM
MachingunJoeTurbo's Avatar

MachingunJoeTurbo MachingunJoeTurbo is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
MachingunJoeTurbo is on a distinguished road
Default 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endoperez
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrispederson
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
MachingunJoeTurbo has no need for proper speling.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 25th, 2009, 04:39 AM
Endoperez's Avatar

Endoperez Endoperez is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eastern Finland
Posts: 7,110
Thanks: 145
Thanked 153 Times in 101 Posts
Endoperez is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Quote:
Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo View Post
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.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen View Post
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.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.
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.

Last edited by Endoperez; January 25th, 2009 at 04:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 26th, 2009, 02:56 AM
MachingunJoeTurbo's Avatar

MachingunJoeTurbo MachingunJoeTurbo is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
MachingunJoeTurbo is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endoperez View Post

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.
Well it looks like Dominions might be passing my Fantasy game test. I know several people have painted me with the "emotional crossbow crusading fanboy troll burger" (say that 5 times fast) brush but all I'm looking for is some kind of parity in my games. Of course I'm still deciding. With a pricy grognard game like this I need to make sure it is right for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombre
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
I made it clear in my first post that I never played Dominions. I saw all the Goons on Somethingawful praise it to high heaven. So I begin my mystic journey and I peruse the forum and see this topic. I think, "Oh how fortunate I get to see if my 'Fantasy game test' applies here." But instead of a unit comparison it's the same ol discussion seen anywhere on these game forums in this time period on this subject with the same sticky problems involved. I am not a troll. To troll one has to have an intent to troll. It was not my intent for you fly into ten orbits after you were corrected on what I said was a silly aside in the first place. I hope all that fresh air from zooming around was invigorating. I was cooped up in the God house reading free verse Bible poetry listening to some rapper talking on a..on a..whatchamacallit all day.


@Incabulos

There are different shows on the History Channel that come to different conclusions. Twelve is way too high. Even if that were the case generally arrows are not carried in numbers greater than 20 in the case of foot archers since packing them tight would crush the fletchings. In other words they would spray out in two minutes and waste a great deal of down time getting porters to refill them dropping the average way down. Crossbowman/Gunman could carry more ammo on their person.

The archers despite flat outnumbering the French horse scouts at Patay could not replicate their success. With a focused charge their horse killing expertise leaves much to be desired as well it seems.
__________________
MachingunJoeTurbo has no need for proper speling.

Last edited by MachingunJoeTurbo; January 26th, 2009 at 02:58 AM.. Reason: Clarified "game forums" meaning all medieval fantasy type games
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 26th, 2009, 04:13 AM
Endoperez's Avatar

Endoperez Endoperez is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eastern Finland
Posts: 7,110
Thanks: 145
Thanked 153 Times in 101 Posts
Endoperez is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Quote:
Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo View Post
I think, "Oh how fortunate I get to see if my 'Fantasy game test' applies here." But instead of a unit comparison it's the same ol discussion seen anywhere on these game forums in this time period on this subject with the same sticky problems involved. I am not a troll. To troll one has to have an intent to troll.
I agree with some of the points you made, but you look like a troll and speak like a troll. Even if it wasn't your intention, your opinion goes against everyone else, you can't give direct links to any sources and you haven't even bothered to try out the demo of the game whose mechanics you are debating. Not to mention that you only registered to take part in this discussion. Unfortunately my junior English dictionary (with pictures!) didn't have the definition of a troll, I'm forced to call you "an internet person who cannot agree with anyone else on anything" instead.



Why could a crossbowman carry more ammo than a longbowman? Wouldn't the bolts' fletching be ruined about as easily?

I've found few mentions of crossbows not being able to arc (e.g. in Final Fantasy Tactics: bows can arc, crossbows/guns can't), and about Chinese using line-fighting with crossbows. So your crossbow facts seem to be all right. Unfortunately, it's hard to find longbow facts that someone who doesn't believe the common knowledge would accept as a fact. I'd have to find someone who doubted longbow's usefulness, researched, and changed his mind.

Last edited by Endoperez; January 26th, 2009 at 04:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 28th, 2009, 04:49 AM
MachingunJoeTurbo's Avatar

MachingunJoeTurbo MachingunJoeTurbo is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
MachingunJoeTurbo is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endoperez View Post

I agree with some of the points you made, but you look like a troll and speak like a troll. Even if it wasn't your intention, your opinion goes against everyone else, you can't give direct links to any sources and you haven't even bothered to try out the demo of the game whose mechanics you are debating. Not to mention that you only registered to take part in this discussion. Unfortunately my junior English dictionary (with pictures!) didn't have the definition of a troll, I'm forced to call you "an internet person who cannot agree with anyone else on anything" instead.
Well looking at Thilock Dominus' list I can see how I fit parts of certain profiles, Contrarion and Agenda, made me blush a bit. But I have not done any different than any other poster sharing what they know. I did not notice many dropping down the hardcore literary works and I don't have a problem with that but I don't feel that what I have been saying has been that alien. I think part of the problem is that some of you take section of things you've heard about their battles that have been...romanced up and you make inferences about mechanics. I'm taking what non-expert knowledge I have about bow mechanics and combining them with the same non-expert knowledge on somewhat lesser known battles. I played the demo a long while ago. I don't know if it has changed but the one I had was limited to the early age and I did not see an active faction with the whole breadth of weapons. I read about crossbows shooting in the back from an AAR about the faction who develops into a "cave blind society" I don't remember the name. It was when the forums were a light brown color. I had forgotten about this game, distracted with school and remembered it when I saw it on Somethingawful.

Plus some of the things I thought should have been easy to look up. Take what I said about arrows and the devices that modern times have come up to help us with them. Take a look at this archery site that explains how to adjust the plunger button and "tune" your arrows.

http://handbook.jousiammuntaseura-ar...oliviritys.htm

Look at the little diagram. Remember where I said the arrow was against the bow? See how the arrow is wiggling on its node points? Look at all the complicated steps you need to take to make sure it's a good arrow and then adjusting the plunger. Doing the test again with and without fletchings. See the grouping. I think the site mentions that's at a mere 7 seven meters. That distance becomes even more awful at "need to kill a man range." And this is WITH a modern bow. WITH modern arrows. WITH high-tech materials And WITH devices like a plunger to make you sure you get it right.

Now go back and look at medieval times. How could they know even a smidgen of what we know now? Imagine the quality control with the need to crank out all those arrows. Would they all test them like that? Did they even have the tools to do so? Even if they could would they?

And that's just the weapon itself. Look at what must be done with actually shooting it.

http://handbook.jousiammuntaseura-ar.../tekniikka.htm

Look at the steps. The need to stand in the proper posture. The need to hold the bow correctly. Here's a sentence in the very beginning that stands out.

"
The shooting with a bow consists of an unbreakable chain of different operational acts which are executed million and again million times the same way."

That sounds familiar...

Look at the anchor. I forgot completely about the need to maintain vertical sameness much less the same draw distance. Look at how utterly minuscule the differences is to mess up your sighting and your aiming.

Now imagine trying to do all of this while someone is trying to kill you. It makes more sense to me to consider longbowmen as still "men" and not stone cold archery robots. Which is what you'd have to be to do this the "same way" especially in combat. This is why I inwardly groan when people talk about their "training." Longbowmen practicing on Sunday does not turn them into those robots anymore than me shooting cans off the fence (on Sunday) makes me into John Rambo. In real combat I would shoot much worse and my pants would be filled with a not insignificant amount of poo.

Quote:
Why could a crossbowman carry more ammo than a longbowman? Wouldn't the bolts' fletching be ruined about as easily?
Several reasons. One they tend to be more compact and so they can easier be reached from multiple packs on your person. Charles VIII of Sweden's xbowmen had something around 7 dozen of these quarrels this way. I believe archers of all kinds tend to wear their ammo on a hip. A longbow arrow is...well long and trying to extend you arm way up to pull it from it's quiver from many angles is going to be...very awkward compared to a quarrel. Also some bolts depending on their usage did not bother with fletchings at all. An arrow without fletchings will behave much much worse compared to a quarrel without one. Quarrels are also therefore are more tolerant of different materials. Since the projectile sits on a tiller the fletchings aren't going to contact the bow in the same way an arrow would and could therefore use much stronger and stiffer materials.

Quote:
I've found few mentions of crossbows not being able to arc (e.g. in Final Fantasy Tactics: bows can arc, crossbows/guns can't), and about Chinese using line-fighting with crossbows. So your crossbow facts seem to be all right. Unfortunately, it's hard to find longbow facts that someone who doesn't believe the common knowledge would accept as a fact. I'd have to find someone who doubted longbow's usefulness, researched, and changed his mind.
Well the internet absorbed so much pro-longbow stuff since the usenet days it's difficult to find. When I tried to scrounge up something on the battles I mentioned I found this blog.

http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2008/...bow-the-final/

He mentions Constance (which I mentioned a while back) here as well as Nogent . But do an experiment. Look up Mauron which is mentioned but ultimately an English success. It comes up easy. Try looking up the Battle of Nogent and Constance. Notice it's not so easy. That's not a coincidence. He also tears Robert Hardy a new one who I dislike as well for those two reasons and more. Look at some of the things you've been digging up on longbows on the net. You'll see his name A LOT. I know many of you cry shock and horror about my insinuations of "longbow fanboyism" but the bias on the Internets is quite real.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Agema
Er, do you have a problem with the English or British?

Firstly, you seem determined to not just deny any credit to them for use of the longbow, but to make out they were cheap, and only won battles because the French were incompetent.

Now you're making bizarre accusations that they repeatedly get "stuck" using old and inefficient technologies and practices. On what grounds would you argue they were any worse than any other race nation? How do you explain they were and still are near the front of technological advancement since about 1700?
No, I mentioned them kicking butt at Assaye did I not? The longbow isn't "theirs" because it's everywhere. The longbow literally sat next them the whole time in Wales. To suspect that they just noticed this "awesome" weapon very LATE to the party is much more of an insult to them. When the French were competent and focused they won handily. When they weren't they lost.

England falls into those traps like other nations do. China is the biggest example. They get set in their ways and caught in a loop. Making the longbow edict turned it into a part of their culture. They were as reluctant to leave it regardless of merit. It is simply something that has happened before. That is all.

The wiki article is very ...misleading to put it lightly. I might use "wrong" but certain individuals can get prickly with that word. It seems to mention modern average bow weight plus the key sentence there is suitable for hunting. "Bows for warfare tend to be much more powerful" and then it mentions two examples. Longbows were not ahead of the curve in any capacity.

@Incabulos:

Porters would have slowed down the overall process. And again the crossbow is a much more cohesive weapon. Focusing on the front ranks of a charge would hamper/trip other horseman. Jan Zizka fended off charges with crossbows all the time and never lost a battle. French scouts which meant that their horses would not be piled up with armor stomped the longbowmen at Patay.

@Lingchih:

I haven't gotten the game yet. When I come into some money I'm sure you will stomp a mudhole in me regardless of weapon as I will be quite the n00b.

@Endoperez:
Sounds like marignon is clearly the superior faction.
__________________
MachingunJoeTurbo has no need for proper speling.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 28th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Endoperez's Avatar

Endoperez Endoperez is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eastern Finland
Posts: 7,110
Thanks: 145
Thanked 153 Times in 101 Posts
Endoperez is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Quote:
Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo View Post
I played the demo a long while ago. I don't know if it has changed but the one I had was limited to the early age and I did not see an active faction with the whole breadth of weapons. I read about crossbows shooting in the back from an AAR about the faction who develops into a "cave blind society" I don't remember the name. It was when the forums were a light brown color. I had forgotten about this game, distracted with school and remembered it when I saw it on Somethingawful.
Early Age doesn't have any crossbows, I think. If any nation has them, it'd be Tien Chi, the "chinese" faction. Longbows are also pretty rare in EA, although I think one of the demo nations (Kailasa, inspired by India) has them.

The "shooting in the back" happens when the enemy forces run away and your own units try to catch up with them. Imagine 60 crossbows aiming at the three retreating militias from halfway across the battlefield, and wounding or even killing several of your own infantry who had almost caught up with them.

It can also happen with bows, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 28th, 2009, 07:01 AM

rdonj rdonj is offline
General
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,007
Thanks: 171
Thanked 206 Times in 159 Posts
rdonj is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endoperez View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo View Post
I played the demo a long while ago. I don't know if it has changed but the one I had was limited to the early age and I did not see an active faction with the whole breadth of weapons. I read about crossbows shooting in the back from an AAR about the faction who develops into a "cave blind society" I don't remember the name. It was when the forums were a light brown color. I had forgotten about this game, distracted with school and remembered it when I saw it on Somethingawful.
Early Age doesn't have any crossbows, I think. If any nation has them, it'd be Tien Chi, the "chinese" faction. Longbows are also pretty rare in EA, although I think one of the demo nations (Kailasa, inspired by India) has them.

The "shooting in the back" happens when the enemy forces run away and your own units try to catch up with them. Imagine 60 crossbows aiming at the three retreating militias from halfway across the battlefield, and wounding or even killing several of your own infantry who had almost caught up with them.

It can also happen with bows, of course.
I don't think T'ien Ch'i has crossbows in the early age, however their composite bows are superb for the ea setting. And yeah, kailasa does have longbows on the bandar archers.

I guess you can ignore what I said about shooting in the back, that does happen and at times I've lost more troops to my own archery as the enemy force retreated than to their infantry.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 28th, 2009, 11:25 AM

chrispedersen chrispedersen is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,075
Thanks: 203
Thanked 121 Times in 91 Posts
chrispedersen is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

the length of the post does nothing to change the fact that you have been simply *wrong* on many points. The first being that the strength of the pull does affect the range fired.

The second being that while you can find exceptions(such as repeating crossbows), that the rate of fire of longbows *is* much greater than crossbows. So much so that that crossbows were fired and reloaded in ranks.

Generally, a nation that puts the most effective fighting force on the field at the cheapest cost wins. Of course there are all kinds of exceptions. But crossbows allowed a very cheap unit to kill very expensive units.

I'm guessing at the numbers - but crossbows were 80% as effective at 20% of the cost. With the primary cost here for longbowmen being a restricted pool of conscripts caused by the lengthy training time, and the difficulty in churning out bows.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 26th, 2009, 04:35 AM

Sombre Sombre is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
Sombre is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Quote:
Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo View Post
I made it clear in my first post that I never played Dominions. I saw all the Goons on Somethingawful praise it to high heaven. So I begin my mystic journey and I peruse the forum and see this topic. I think, "Oh how fortunate I get to see if my 'Fantasy game test' applies here." But instead of a unit comparison it's the same ol discussion seen anywhere on these game forums in this time period on this subject with the same sticky problems involved. I am not a troll. To troll one has to have an intent to troll. It was not my intent for you fly into ten orbits after you were corrected on what I said was a silly aside in the first place. I hope all that fresh air from zooming around was invigorating. I was cooped up in the God house reading free verse Bible poetry listening to some rapper talking on a..on a..whatchamacallit all day.
Since you want to be treated like you still don't get it, I'll break it down for you. Read slowly and carefully.

OJD - 6,000 headwords, designed for 7 year olds, primarily containing words that are in a 7 year old's active vocabulary.

Comprehensive dictionary - roughly 500,000 headwords, for adults such as yourself(?), authoritative. Useful for looking up words you don't know. Perhaps you should switch to this big boy dictionary if you're having so much trouble with the OJD.

You don't know what you're talking about, can't admit it and keep posting 'you're wrong' to provoke a response. That's trolling. It was funny at first but you aren't coming up with anything new, so I won't mention it again.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 26th, 2009, 04:45 AM
Thilock_Dominus's Avatar

Thilock_Dominus Thilock_Dominus is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 471
Thanks: 23
Thanked 28 Times in 16 Posts
Thilock_Dominus is on a distinguished road
Default

http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F

About Troll

The Vulgar Troll. These, the crudest of all trolls, make no attempt to hide their species. Often, they make racist comments, or they may post porn and other spam. Vulgars usually confine their comments merely to primitive, profane, off-topic observations. When you log into the Really Profound Serious Philosophical Discussions board and see the post, "I smell my farts," you've spotted the Vulgar Troll. Other species of troll sometimes revert to this form when cornered.

The Deceptive or "Classic" Troll. More sophisticated but often easily identified and exposed, the Classic Troll gratifies his ego by pretending to be someone or something he or she is not. Classics make up elaborate stories about themselves, sometimes weaving some amounts of truth into their lies. As a web of lies is difficult to build with consistency, however, Classics are often "outed" by other forumites. When this happens, Classic Trolls have a bag of tricks to which they turn:

Classic Troll Tactic Number 1: If the heat gets too much for you, claim it was all "a joke." In this way you can excuse any and all deceit by claiming people just weren't smart enough to "get" the humor of it.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 2: Create another account, and log on pretending to be someone else, in order to show support for the Troll in Question (TiQ). These puppet accounts sometimes claim to be disinterested third parties. At other times they pretend to be "friends" of the TiQ.

Classic Troll Tactic Number 3: When your lies paint you into a corner, claim that your little brother, or some unnamed friend, has commandeered your account and made you look foolish. This technique can also be applied in claiming that the puppet account(s) you created may not, in fact, be disinterested third parties or friends, but that they are your relatives ("little brother" is most common) only trying to help support you.

Classic Troll Tactic Number 4: When nothing else works, claim that now, finally, you're telling the truth about all the lies you told before. Make up a fresh set of lies, and throw yourself on the mercy of the forumites.

Classic Troll Tactic Number 5: When all else fails, claim to be leaving forever. Trolls who claim they are leaving never do, of course; you can bet that anyone who proclaims, "I'm never coming back here," will most certainly at least check back for responses, and probably will not be able to resist posting again.

Classic Troll Tactic Number 6: Have a tantrum. When all their other tricks are exhausted, Classic Trolls will become angry and start shouting. Often they revert to Vulgar Trolls when this happens.

Classic Troll Tactic Number 7: The insincere apology. Similar to Tactic 4, this involves pretending to repent for one's trolling and is accompanied often by great melodrama. Insincere troll apologists hope that they'll be forgiven if only they act disgusted enough with their own behavior.

The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

The YerATroll. YerATrolls are those whining forumites who devote a tremendous amount of time and energy complaining about the tremendous amount of time an energy expended by Troll Bashers and Angry Forumites on the practice of troll-hunting. A self-righteous and hypocritical breed, YerATrolls spend all their time pointing fingers at everyone but trolls, petulantly demanding that their opinions be granted the significance the YerATroll believes they deserve. YerATrolls often start threads excoriating others for troll-hunting, all the while completely oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in trolling by picking fights with everyone else. One of the most ill-tempered of troll species, YerATrolls are characterized by a childish need for attention disguised as cynical nobility and pretensions of being "above it all."

The Agenda Troll. Agenda trolls are those participants who join a forum specifically to pursue an agenda of their own – often a feud or grudge with another member, or perhaps a dispute with some party not participating in that forum. When a flame war erupts on another board, for example, Agenda Trolls will follow their opponents to other forums in order to continue the spat.

Some Agenda Trolls are subject-matter oriented. An Agenda Troll who thinks Self-Defense Instructor X is a fraud, or who feels he has been ripped off or otherwise dealt with unfairly by Instructor X, will visit forums devoted to self-defense and martial arts in order to spread his or her negative opinion of Instructor X.

Agenda Trolls may also be of the milder Spam Agenda subspecies; these are Trolls who join a board specifically to advertise some venture of their own. They are not often troublesome, though their shameless plugging is met with varying degrees of irritation.

The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or "philotrolls," fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.

When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be "immature," and are fond of quoting that old saw that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll's bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent's words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.

When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.

The Affected Profundity Troll. A mutant subspecies of Sophist Trolls, Affected Profundity Trolls post endless pages of pretentious drivel that is intended to appear wise, but which generally makes little sense (if any). Affected Profundity Trolls enjoy asking themselves questions, sometimes answering them and sometimes leaving them hanging, for they believe this looks intelligent and lends an aura of mystery to their incoherent ramblings. Affected Profundity Trolls aspire to become Sophist Trolls, but lack the intelligence necessary to make the leap.

The Don King Troll. Related to Affected Profundity Trolls, Don King Trolls spout gibberish in the hope that they'll either bore or confuse to death those with whom they disagree. The average Don King Troll is "a pursuitist who gromulates his adversarial computerists with height defining formulations to the disinterestingest adjunct."

The Artistic Troll. A higher species of Classic Troll, Artistic Trolls are intelligent individuals who understand the subtle art of trolling, and who do what they do specifically to make others look foolish. Often employing the techniques of Deceptive Trolls, Artistics will string forumites along until some point in time designated by their own desires, at which point they will reveal the ploy, admit that it was a ploy, and laugh at everyone for being stupid enough to fall for it. Artistic Trolls delight in sowing discord, but do it in a highly developed and fully aware manner. They do not care if they are despised, and do not seek the approval of forum participants. Chaos is their only goal, and preferably chaos with a humorous bent to it. Without a doubt, this is the most dangerous species.

The Bitter Troll. Bitter Trolls are a curious cross-species. They can be trolls of any breed in their larval stages, but become Bitters after their previous activities are seen for what they were. What sets these trolls apart from other classifications is their behavior after they have been spotted and labeled as trolls. Angry, frustrated, and resentful about being "outed," the Bitter Troll will wage a campaign of indignant complaints intended to focus attention away from the troll and on whomever is responsible for identifying the creature. Often, a troll mutates into a Bitter just prior to becoming a Vulgar.

The Bustr. Bustrs are obsessive Bitters by whom you could practically set your watch. A Bustr never forgets, never forgives, and holds a grudge until the day it dies. Also a variant of Agenda trolls, Bustrs typically move from forum to forum complaining about the objects of their ire, often cutting and pasting age-old diatribes that have little meaning to most of their audiences. Most Bustrs are relatively incoherent, though a few of the more lucid ones are potentially dangerous stalkers.

The Mutt. Alternatively known as Dogs or Yapping Dogs. Mutts are pack animals characterized by their loud barking – vociferous, repetitive, usually ignorant and irrational criticism of anything and anyone they do not like. Mutts frequently become obsessed with a few or even a single poster with whom they disagree, often for purely personal reasons. Like a dog gnawing at a bone, the Mutt will attack the object of its ire over and over again, making a fool of itself in the eyes of those who understand such childish behavior for what it is. Often one Mutt in a group of Yapping Dogs will act as the alpha of the pack, while the others chime in to voice their mindless (but loud) support for their leader's opinions.

The Holy Misroller (HM). Holy Misrollers are those online forum participants who give Christians (or other religious adherents) a bad name. The HM believes himself or herself to be a Christian (etc.) and will generally tell anyone who'll listen about his or her faith in God and in Jesus. At the same time, however, the HM will display decidedly un-Christian behavior, frequently making an *** out of him- or herself. The HM is often characterized by a great deal of anger and hostility. The breed tends to lash out at anyone and anything not in keeping with its incorrectly narrow worldview. The saddest part about HMs is that they do not truly understand Christianity at all.

The Marketing Genius. A Marketing Genius is absolutely convinced that you are profiting from your participation in an Internet forum. If you have a link or a graphic block in you signature, the Marketing Genius just knows that this is your subtle attempt to assert your hypnotic powers on other bulletin board participants, luring them with the siren song of your complex and inscrutable advertising of your site. It does not matter to the Marketing Genius that forum members have been placing links and pictures in their signatures since the ability to do so was first created. Having never created anything of value themselves, Marketing Geniuses have only their bitter envy and their firm belief that you are a Dot Com Billionaire to motivate and occupy them.

The Honorable Nitwit. Honorable Nitwits absolutely love to speak about honor. This breed invokes the concepts of honor, integrity, humility, and other traits straight from the Boy Scout Oath more often than a Klingon warrior on anti-depressants. Honorable nitwits are convinced that everyone around them suffers from a lack of honor – an idea they thoroughly fail to understand in attempting to use its lack to smear others.

The Old Warrior. The Old Warrior has been there and done that. He has little time to spare for those who have not been there and done that. The Old Warrior has been there and done that to such an extent, in fact, that he is always right. Anyone who disagrees with him, therefore, is wrong by definition and should shut the hell up. Old Warriors place a very high premium on one's credentials relevant to the subject matter discussed – failing to understand the logical fallacy of appeals to authority.

The Forum Cultist. Forum cultists are extremely proud of the incredible Internet communities to which they belong. They pride themselves on the exclusivity of those communities and actually believe that "it can't happen to them" – "it," of course, being their own banishment. Forum cultists place a very high premium on groupthink and generally react to differing opinions with outrage, banning all who dare to speak them.
__________________
| Ubuntu Linux 12.04 64-bit |

Nosophoros: The Vampire Lords - v1.02
Conquest of Elysium 3 GUI mods

Last edited by Thilock_Dominus; January 26th, 2009 at 04:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thilock_Dominus For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.