Crossbows vs. Longbows

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

Speaking of mods, about a year ago Sombre helped me make a mod that gave all slingers a weapon that deals -2 damage, plus strength. It also increases the range to slightly over a short bow's range, but that's overkill, really. Strength of Giants boosting slingers' damage would be enough to give them a niche use. Would anyone be interested in seeing that mod updated?

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.

[Lingchih]

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.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

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.

[vfb]

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

[Agema]

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".

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

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.

...

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

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.

[Tifone]

Aaah, this crossbow-fanboyism these days...

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.

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.

[Thierry]

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 ?

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Thierry

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 ?

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.