Please discuss your ideas about Archer Units.

Archers should be able to bombard tiles, causing damage to units but not buildings on the tile.

There could maybe be a monetary cost for this action for the large scale waste of arrows.

WarKirby

Hi all,

I suppose that Houman will don't like my opinion;) : Immortals are really overpowered.
I know that they were very very powerfull but it's too much, IMHO. With a bit luck in fight, you can give them promos that make them really "immortal".

When you compare, skirmishers (malinese UU) seem weak. Why ? I don't understand.


The Frog.

Immortals from what i was told in school, are fighters armed whith javanelins and swords covered chain armor. The truth about their name "immortal" is not their strength, but the size of each pluton. Each had 10 thousand units i belive, and were quickly replaced making each pluton have 10 thousand units all the time (unless after battle). That was making their name. It was like every battle their army had same amount of people, making other think that fallen soldier rise from dead.
??? Dont know what of that is true ???
But persians had both archers and immortals, so immortals should not replace archers but spearman. Also Alexander the Great defeated Persians becouse he had great horses and his companion cavalary, and Persians whith no anti-cavalary unit such as spearman coudnt resist their attack.

Alas for archery units. They should have like less 50% less strength, but 100% retreat chance. History showed that archers whith no melee unit backup were easy pray, as when it come to close range combat they suck.
It would make it this way, that archers are warrior whith bows (str 2) giving the quite a chance vs warriors + archers retreat. But when arechers dont kill a unit and they retreat, it leaves them whith 0.1 strength and no moves making them easy target for the unit archers were attacking and did not kill.
It should apply to mounted archers and gunpowder units.
It make sense, if you think not, think again, and again, and again, and give it up :P

Hi all,

I suppose that Houman will don't like my opinion;) : Immortals are really overpowered.
I know that they were very very powerfull but it's too much, IMHO. With a bit luck in fight, you can give them promos that make them really "immortal".

When you compare, skirmishers (malinese UU) seem weak. Why ? I don't understand.


The Frog.

:nono:

dont comment.:lol:

What are their attributes? i forgot and i let my friend borrow the game for a while.

thanks.. :thumbsup:

Alas for archery units. They should have like less 50% less strength, but 100% retreat chance. History showed that archers whith no melee unit backup were easy pray, as when it come to close range combat they suck.
It would make it this way, that archers are warrior whith bows (str 2) giving the quite a chance vs warriors + archers retreat. But when arechers dont kill a unit and they retreat, it leaves them whith 0.1 strength and no moves making them easy target for the unit archers were attacking and did not kill.
It should apply to mounted archers and gunpowder units.
It make sense, if you think not, think again, and again, and again, and give it up :P


Modding their strength down like that would seriously castrate archers in general though, especially since you'd have to do the same thing to longbowmen. Also, depending on what kind of archers you are talking about, they weren't completely useless at melee. Most archery units didn't get the 'gee-whiz' armor the main line infantry did, but they weren't defenseless, they carried short swords and the like. Me personally, I delude myself into believing that a unit of archers has a small infantry escort built in to justify why they are decent strength.
Oh, and as it is, take a unit of macemen against longbowmen, and unless the bowmen are fortified behind walls, I think you'll see the macemen win that fight almost every time already.

Modding their strength down like that would seriously castrate archers in general though, especially since you'd have to do the same thing to longbowmen. Also, depending on what kind of archers you are talking about, they weren't completely useless at melee. Most archery units didn't get the 'gee-whiz' armor the main line infantry did, but they weren't defenseless, they carried short swords and the like. Me personally, I delude myself into believing that a unit of archers has a small infantry escort built in to justify why they are decent strength.
Oh, and as it is, take a unit of macemen against longbowmen, and unless the bowmen are fortified behind walls, I think you'll see the macemen win that fight almost every time already.
Exactly this game leaaves alot to be desired and rightfully so. "Imagination is more powerful than knowledge"" Einstien I think, Infantry escort and anything else you may need to elaborate and justify is just a part of the game, game = fun, not to be an actual recount of history + tacticians and strategies...

@Anaztioch "Alas for archery units. They should have like less 50% less strength, but 100% retreat chance. History showed that archers whith no melee unit backup were easy pray, as when it come to close range combat they suck."

50% less strength. Are you joking? And if they are made to be complete skirmish units, how are they going to protect cities, which is what they are really for? Also if you think archers are so weak in hand to hand. Look at the battle of Crecy. After firing lethal waves of arrows, and in a state of excellent morale the english longbowmen charged into melee and helped to defeat the french knight army. That was fighting with their daggers in light or no armour.

Archers are historically not the best in close, but the situations of the battle dictate whether the enemy gets that option. Being lightly armoured isnt always a bad thing.

Enough with your bowmen are warriors with bows argument. Bowmen and longbowmen especially, are a lot more than warriors, the lowest of low militias.

Im in middle of attantion again :D

@ storm6436
Yes archers had a military escoret, that why in game you will have to put stack archer whith melee unit to give them their "escort".
50% strngth is too much right. What i really meant is to weaken their attack only, not all strength (defance and attack). Also giving them 100% retreat, makes them unkillabe when attacking and their melee stack will protect them in next turn from counter attacks.
Archers should not have "bombard" action as one title is a large as city, and its definatly beyond archers reach.

But getting back to this -50%, too much right. Maybe -35% and only to attack? and it will not affect defance and city defance.

@ Los Tirano

"english longbowmen charged into melee and helped to defeat the french knight army"
You said "helped". Whom they helped ? Melee army made from swordsman, pikeman and helaberdians ?
In civ 4 this battle may look like this:
(French turn) Black knight attacks swordsmans and pikemans, killes like hald, weakenes half. Some black knights dies, some retreated. (end turn)
(British turn) Use melee units to attack most healthy black night, pikemans will succseed, swordsman less. Black knight will either die, or be severelly wounded. Use healthy longbowmans to kill black night whith strength 2.0-0.1 (end turn)
Was that hard ?

The archery units should be more defancive and support units not ramping lonbowmans that own half of europe.
And was there a battle in middle agaes in witch lonbowmans defeated a castle protected by longbowmans ? Dont think so. In civ 4 7 longbowmans whith city raider I can take a castle defanded city of pop 7 whith 3 longbowmans city defance I each. In reality that would never happen, as Longbowmans dont have means to either lay siege, or break in to the castle.
And if you will say that longbowmans had an escort, this mean that in civ 4 this escort would be some other unit.

And comming to bowman are warriors whith bows. Bowmans were skilled in both melee and ranged weapons. Differance betwean them was equipment.Archers recived a bow and arrows, and some dagger or short sword. They didnt need heavy armor, as it would slow'em down. Also have you tried to shoot an arrow in full plate ? Where one gauntlet is 1.5kg weight ? They WERE skilled, but not equiped to engage in melee.
Any way you did bring up battle of Cracy. What about Polish war whith Mongols(In our history they were called Tatars, after this war we diceded to put up stational military). We had our archers in back line and cavalary in front line, but after Tatars used their smoke bombs, cavalary retreated running down and killing archers (dont know if they were longbowmans).
Also in civ 4 the archer vs melee fight animation is 1 wave of arrows, and melee to the end... Some times wave didnt kill any and in melee my archer (not longbowman) killed maceman (3 macemans in animation).

Wrong. You should check up the battle and the composition of english armies. The english army had more longbowmen in it than anything else, that was the english way of waging war. I havent found mention of pikemen, would have been small divisions of swordsmen but no mention fo them, and some cavalry, also no mention. So, at Crecy army of archers defeated knights. They were on a hill. The english were outnumbered by the way. The french were not softened up by pikemen, they had to march slowly through boggy terrain. English armies differed to the french, dutch, swiss, spanish etc.

As for the 7 longbowmen raiders vs the three longbowmen in the city, you are also overlooking so very much. Imagine flaming arrows over the walls, setting the city on fire, imagine a large force of quick moving bandit-like troops beseiging your city. Shooting any lazy sentries off the walls at night. Preventing food and other supplies from coming in, swarming out of forests and killing any units that came out to get them. This could happen, a city could be taken like this. So i think civ is right to award it to the seven. Hian?

Too bad for those archers run over by horses, Bad battle line placement.

Civ animations. Your being too petty. The hand to hand animations were probably chosen to make the game look good. Archers fire more volleys than one before enemies get to them, assuming they werent surprised. Archers with extra first strikes become very nasty. One guy gets to melee after a few promotions.

Anaztazioch, Los Tirano,

At Crecy, there was around 25,000 Frenchmen and only around 6,000 English.
Note that these numbers are not sure, historians still try to know "the truth" about the real strenght of the two armies....
What is sure is that the English army was nearly all made of Longbowmen. Only a small part, around 500 to 1,000 men, were mounted or hand to hand fight soldiers. Most of the mounted troop were Yeomen and Nobles. They acted as strike force, command chain,... Hand to hand soldiers were mercenaries (very few) and common people that follow the army. They were used to "finish" the job ( killing wounded, ransoming French Knights and Nobles, pillaging,...).
In all the three great battles (Crecy, Poitiers, Azincourt) of the Hundred Years War, Longbowmen were absolutly the "lethal weapon" of the English army. Each time, the french chivalry was destroyed before reaching the english lines. Of course, there was a failure in tactics for the French. But there was also a good use of the battlefield by the english. At Poitiers for exemple, they were on a hill surrounded by wineyards. Explain to me how to charge in such a land without heavy losses !!! Sometimes, there was also some "luck" for the English: heavy rain transform the battlefield in a swamp where heavy charge were nearly impossible....
Conclusion: Longbowmen, in defense, were a terrific force to destroy. Their rate of fire, their accuraty, their "punch" to penetrate the heavier armor,...and their great sense of tactic make them nearly invinsible in open field. In defense only, it's very different if they have to attack.... Longbowmen were in fact the first real attempt of a modern permanent army, thanks to the King Edward I and Edward III.

About longbowmen and siege: difficult to give a good answer. Most siege were victorious because the defensors surrendered (lack of food, lack of water, diseases,...) There was very assault, it was to long and to costly. Only great castle, strategic stronghold, big cities,...can support a long siege. Look at the First Crusade. Antioch fell only after a long siege, some bloody but useless assault,... It was a treason that gave the city to the crusaders.

I don't think that archer units are the best units for siege. They were usefull, that's sure, to shoot ennemy archers,set fires inside the castle,... but to take a castle by force, the best units are hand to hand fighters. Cavalry was absolutly useless and Knights had to dismount, so beeing very vulnerable. Remember that Richard I the Lionhearted died in France, killed by a crossbow arrow (while dismounted )in the siege of a minor castle....

The Frog

Im glad your here to fill in the gaps of my knowledge Hian. Ive started to fight more defensively and use longbowmen in the field a lot more. Works a treat when you did into those forested hills. Or block points between mountains where enemies have to go.

Im looking forward to the new medieval game coming out, especially playing the hundred years war, from both sides. And the conquest of the Americas of course. ;)
If the game is good, it'll provide more ideas for TR.

Note that Longbow CANNOT pirce fine steel armor as French knight had.
Dont know how many knight had that armor and more importantly, when they "resarched" it. So in battles you mentioned a longbow was a lethal weapon, mayby its a mythical longbow, not the real one. Its like Excalibour for swordsman, making them unbeatable in combat like Arthur was.

So either French troops were"
1) unprepared for battlein hill terrain in witch longbows have advantage.
2) had their horses unarmored, making it even easier for longbow to stop the charge
3) longbow was actually replaced by crossbow (unlikelly)
4) magical longbow that breaks the rights of physics
5) french knights sucked
6) french commander sucked
7) french army had cursed armor
8) there was a heavy rain whith weak wind, making cavalary hard to move on wet terrain, and weak wind didnt have much impact on arrows.
9) terrain was more cliffts than hills (unlikelly)
10) forest hills

However the numbers you presented of army strengths ? Maybe they counted peasants that helped knights put armor on and mount the horse ? As well as medics.

I dont remember quite well the range of a Longbow, 400-500 metres + hills lets say 650m(i know short bow max range whith now wind is 340. but effective max range is <200m, short arrows dont fly good whith gravity, air forbids them to fly faster) ? Horses whith such burden can charge at speed of about 25-30km/h. Thats 416m/s - 500m/s. So the longbow could shot 2, mayby 3 shots into them.
British Cavalary was also mentioned... propably they were used to slow down the charge by engaigening them before they rech half of range, giving lobows addonitional 5 -7 shots, but whith a chance of friendly fire.
Ofcourse im counting rested and healthy horses (dont know if healthy existed in middle ages).

They only way i see it for brits to win is to tire the horses, as that forses cavalary to retreat. A mounted knight that its horse is down, immobile steel can, waiting for mercifull blow, or prison unleas its recued by commerades.

How ever, how English longbow can be a better weapon than regular longbow ? Only wood differance. More eleastic. Or its just the nuber of armies, where longbowman was majority and that made them famous as English Longbowman.
Still a crossbow thats bold flies about 3 times faster than regular longbows arrow, have Real probllem pirceing steel cavalary armor (foot armor is lighter, and is not full plate, but half plate, whith chain mail filling the "holes" betwean the plates. Half plate is about 20% lighter than full plate, in my height [170cm] its 4kg differance[not counting helmet]).

I KNOW that ARROW even whith steel ending fired from regular longbow CANNOT pirce 3,5 cm thick steel plate put on silicon "chest". So i wont belive that English longbow witch is mayby stronger, still wont pirce steel plate, especially when Brits arrows had IRON endings.

And Los Tirano - please refer to battle other than Cracy.
As i might as well refer to Life of Brian Jerusalems Suicide Squad, that runs into the city and commit sucide, and every one is so frightned that leaves the city....

"Note that Longbow CANNOT pirce fine steel armor as French knight had." Anaztazioch

:lol: So you mean to tell me, the thousands of french knights killed during the battles of the hundred years war, didnt die? All because you think the arrows fired by the welsh longbow (and they were bodkin arrows by the way, not broadheads) couldnt go through armour? Evidently they could sir. History books attest to this fact, there are eye-witness accounts in these history books. Rows upon rows of dead knights, and your knowledge refutes this?

I really wish you would do some research, the british cavalry did not slow down the french, they stayed back. The french had a hard time getting through the soft ground and up the hill, thats why they were slow.

I continue to bring up Crecy because it remains relevant, and you keep denying the outcome.

"As i might as well refer to Life of Brian Jerusalems Suicide Squad, that runs into the city and commit sucide, and every one is so frightned that leaves the city...." Anaztazioch

Indeed you might, but that wouldnt be a real world example from history now would it? :thumbsup:

Anaztazioch,

Please, stop such a silly talk. Take your time to read some books about the Hundred Years Wars and only AFTER give some intelligent comments.

Just some ideas you really have to put in your mind:
- At that time, France had 20 millions inhabitants so an army of 25,000 is not impossible. Some allies were also on the battlefield at each of the three great battles. For exemple, the King of Bohemia, who died, or the Duke of Lorraine, feudal of the Empire. England had only 7 millions inhabitants, so a small army (nearly all professionals) and no ally (at least at the beginning)
- Longbows were lethal weapons when well used, whatever you like or not ! Crossbow were used by Frenchmen, they were Genoan mercenaries. Crossbowmen were useless in this battle, the string of the weapon was too wet...
- Try to be less aggressive with French, even if you don't like them. I suppose that you will not accept that somebody criticize your country. I don't want to remind you (and those who don't know ) what happen to Poland and his "Great" army, which had no sucked Knights and commanders i suppose, in 1795 and the following years..... Right ? Understood ?

WE ARE ALL HERE TO IMPROVE A MOD, NOT TO BE INSULTED BECAUSE OF OUR NATIONALITY.

The Frog

hello:wavey:

calm down everybody..:D

Longbows were difficult to master because the force required to draw the bow was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 36 kgf (360 N, 80 lbf) and possibly more than 65 kgf (650 N, 143 lbf). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat fire required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.

To penetrate chain mail armour, many war arrows had 'chisel' (or 'bodkin') heads and were quite massive. Bodkin arrows have tips like elongated pyramids, which result in a very sharp and very narrow point. With their bodkin points these massive war arrows probably weighed around 65 to 100 grams (1000 to 1500 grains, grain being a unit of measure often used for arrows and bullets). This is 2 or 3 times the weight of the wooden or aluminum arrows that are used today and 4 to 5 times the weight of modern carbon fiber arrows or pre 20th century 'flight arrows', used in distance shooting contests. In peacetime, in some regions, carrying chisel points was a hanging offence, because it was thought to threaten noblemen or they were taken as evidence that one was a highwayman. Specialist war-arrows were designed to tackle the problem of different types of armour. For example, arrows with thin and sharply slanted heads were used to pierce chainmail suits, breaking one ring and consequently 'popping' a huge hole in the armour as the force of the impact knocked the other rings out of place. Many war-arrows had heads that were only attached with a small blob of wax, so that if they were to be removed conventionally only the shaft would come out, leaving the head lodged in the victim which would almost certainly cause an infected wound. The effects of a longbow are illustrated by this 12th century account by Gerald of Wales:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow

The longbow, because of its rapidity of fire, was a medieval machine gun. It has been calculated that a bowman of the Hundred Years War period, when military archery was at its zenith, could shoot 10 to 12 arrows a minute.15 The closest weapon in range and strength to the longbow was the crossbow. But, as the battle of Crecy (1346) showed, even the superior Genoese composite crossbow - made of wood, horn, sinew and glue - was no match for the English weapon.16

After firearms were introduced into continental warfare, Sir John Smythe, soldier of fortune, and Queen Elizabeth's ambassador to the Spanish Court of Philip II, noted that "archers are able to discharge four or five arrows apiece before the harquebusies shall be ready to discharge one bullet.17

The two current authorities both agree the weapon was much stronger than our present day bows.

http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html

interesting longbows are seen as midieval machine guns...

the best of the bows

the famous mongol composite bow

The Mongol bow is not as large and long as the English one, but it is vastly more powerful. The draw weight of an English longbow averages around 70-80 pounds, whereas the Old Mongol bow had a pull that, according to George Vernadsky, averaged at around 166 pounds. Chambers states that the pull varied from 100 to 160 pounds. This seeming discrepancy certainly reflects the fact that draw weight varied with the strength of the user, and with what use the bow had been made for. As could be expected, there was a considerable difference in shooting range. Whereas the English longbow could shoot at distances up to 250 yards or around 228 meters, the Mongol counterpart can hit its target at 350 yards or 320 meters and, if the archer is well trained for the task, even beyond that.


http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm

after seeing this. i think maybe mongol longbow should be stronger a little :mischief: bit...

That certainly is very interesting. I agree the mongolian bow is a superb weapon, and the keshik archer well reflects this. However, some discrepancies arise.

He states

"The Mongol bow is not as large and long as the English one, but it is vastly more powerful. The draw weight of an English longbow averages around 70-80 pounds, whereas the Old Mongol bow had a pull that, according to George Vernadsky, averaged at around 166 pounds. Chambers states that the pull varied from 100 to 160 pounds."

But your wikipedia resource on longbows states
"Bows for warfare tend to be much more powerful, with the most powerful bows being the English longbow and the African elephant bow, both of which topped the 100 pound mark."

So he seems to be claiming the power of the longbow was far less, trying to claim a difference that may not have really been there? When they may have been quite close. Still, i think the mongolian bow is superior, its smaller, has a great punch behind it, can be used fom horseback, and since its not so large or cumbersome the refire rate would be a bit better.

That certainly is very interesting. I agree the mongolian bow is a superb weapon, and the keshik archer well reflects this. However, some discrepancies arise.

He states

"The Mongol bow is not as large and long as the English one, but it is vastly more powerful. The draw weight of an English longbow averages around 70-80 pounds, whereas the Old Mongol bow had a pull that, according to George Vernadsky, averaged at around 166 pounds. Chambers states that the pull varied from 100 to 160 pounds."

But your wikipedia resource on longbows states
"Bows for warfare tend to be much more powerful, with the most powerful bows being the English longbow and the African elephant bow, both of which topped the 100 pound mark."

So he seems to be claiming the power of the longbow was far less, trying to claim a difference that may not have really been there? When they may have been quite close. Still, i think the mongolian bow is superior, its smaller, has a great punch behind it, can be used fom horseback, and since its not so large or cumbersome the refire rate would be a bit better.

funny i didnt actually look at the whole thing:lol: :lol:

i will tend not to go on the wikipedia so much iguess...since "anybody" could edit it.:D

Los Tirano, Spartan117,

Very interesting posts about bows.:goodjob:
I like to read that longbows were seen as medieval machineguns.... I let you imagine what 5,000 english longbowmen, firing from the top of a hill, had done of the french chivalry.... bloody !

About Keshik and all mongolian archer units, why not "upgrading" them ? As their bows were as good as longbows, if not better, it could be logical to upgrade some of these units (strenght, promo, flavour,...). I had already send a post somewhere that explain their tactics ( three columns, surrounding their ennemy, crippled it with arrows, finish the job with shock attacks when routed)

My apologizes for yesterday post :bowdown: . "Free attacks" about nationality, religion, skin color,....make me crazy. :gripe: :aargh: [pissed]

The Frog.

@ Hian the Frog and Los Tirano

Stop a silly talk ? Have you ever been knocked down from a horse in full armor ? Like 2 weeks in hospital. Had some problems whith neck. Rest was only "hurt".

Get a job guys, buy a steel breast plate thick 40mm, well 35mm as this was better and fire any arrow at your chest. SEE what happens. IT is phisically impossible for it to pirce. Wont even get stuck in it. Also Plate is not flat. It not flat (round like) not to make it comfortable, or look cool. It has a point to make arrow and bolts "slide" not damage it.

Dont refer to a book only - try this. 100 punds you say right for a longbow arrow (previous posts), well a longsword whoth weight arround 5kg (10 pounds ?) was really inafective in fight against heavy armored troop. Mostly wasnt wounding (bleeding). More it was broken bones, and hurt muscles.

And if you say that plate armor was not as effective - than why it was so goddamn expensive ?

Afcourse i can be wrong, as in XV centuary steel armor was more good looking. Armor no longger had even surface, to deflect arrows. It had nubbly surface. Such armor was lighter, and better vs melee weapons, but arrows and bolts were more "deadly". End if (and only if) armoies fighting vs longbowmans used such armor, it was their folishness, and their fault to die.

Also Hian you posted:
"Sometimes, there was also some "luck" for the English: heavy rain transform the battlefield in a swamp where heavy charge were nearly impossible...."
"Of course, there was a failure in tactics for the French."
So it wasnt Only the longbow. Tired men in heavy armor is as good as dead one.

Im not saying that heavy armors are unbeatable, or "impossible to defeat. Just gonna refer again to the "greatest" battle of Polish middle ages. Grunewald 1410. Just know that Poland, Litvia and Tatars dint have heavier armor than chainmail (exept for leader that could afford such thing). But Teutonic order and Germans had plate armor + their camp was on open grassland. No shadow, and the sun was shining. They started battle whith weakened warriors. And that was 1st step to their defeat. Of course Poland, Litvia and Tatars had number advantage, but none of us had LONGBOW (mayby Tatars had Mongolish longbow, who knows).

There fore its not weapon that was winning wars, it was tactics.

Another thing for heavy armor. If you dont want to shoot at your self, just equip armor, weapon and shield, lie down on grass and try to stend up. Wonder how long it will take you to do it as "rested" "knight".

Also it has nothing to do whith my French hating. As it was said (dont remember by who) - Only the stupid can underestimate the one he hates.
And about our losing in XVIII - it hard to find the truth in our country. Only internet. Its like asking a Japanese about WW II.

"Get a job guys, buy a steel breast plate thick 40mm, well 35mm as this was better and fire any arrow at your chest. SEE what happens. IT is phisically impossible for it to pirce."

As i said, obviously nobody in plate mail died, because you know better. All those nobles in their expensive plate armour, must have just fallen over and died of exhaustion, because the arrows certainly couldnt have gone through. No, this man clearly knows best! To hell with well established facts based on years of research?

And you say get a job, well to that i say get an education. If you study you will find that it is neither tactics, or weapons that entirely win wars. You are forgetting morale of the army, the enemy they are facing and morale in the home countries. And secondly the competence of the leading general, the ability of the officers, and NCO's. Of course if you read a bit more you would realize that, and we wouldnt be debating longbow effectiveness.

Grunewald. Im amazed that you are impressed by this battle. Plenty of factors on 'your' side. Bows vs heavy melee, good equipment. How many more soldiers did 'your' side have? You are so typical of an ethnic nationalist my friend. And why are you so proud when you werent there?

Anaztazioch,

Why trying to have a discussion with you ? I don't know...
Having a job ? Yes that's right. Today, i've got no job. In the last years, i was in countries at war, fighting for strange concepts such as peace or freedom (of religion, of talk), helping minorities to survive,.... You know, the job of a soldier, the guys who are trying to give peace and security to others, like you. What is frightening, and also boring, is that i also gave peace and security to "poor guys", like you it seems, who are aggressive, nationalist, religious fanatics... And, yes i love books. It was my best way to forget what i was looking everyday. My own cloud, above all this mass of sh----

So, please, if you are not enough educated or tolerant go on a polish website.
There is also many kinds of guys i don't like and i try as most as possible to shut my mouth here, in civfanatics.

The ( worked up) Frog.

@ Los Tirano

Lets end this as it seems there is no point of getting this.
Im really not a nationalist as Hian "suggests" it.

Grunewald. Im amazed that you are impressed by this battle. Plenty of factors on 'your' side. Bows vs heavy melee, good equipment. How many more soldiers did 'your' side have? You are so typical of an ethnic nationalist my friend. And why are you so proud when you werent there?

I share MY knowlage i earned in MY days. Thats school, brotherhood, hobby and some books. Pain my books were written by Polish writers. That may mean i have wrong knowlage. But the differance betwean "may" and "is" is quite large.

Same is whith your knowlage of English (Welsh the name?) longbow and battle of Cracy (lets keep it to this one ok?). Well, what happened there, no1 knows. French were defeated we know that one. English must have been proud and made some legends(or not), and Frenchman that retreated to bring bad news, made some excuse. All this made Longbow a "myth" weapon. Also all that they said could be truth.

But I really cant pirce breast plate whith longbow from 100 feet. Im not an archer/marksman. Also all my "brothers" cdnt do that. There was alsoa nd discovery channel showing that longbow (arrow whith iron ending) cannot pirce steel armor. And that program in Discovery Channel made me wonder and try thing in brotherhood.

And as it seems all i get for trying to convince you and show you "true faith" i recive insults of being nationalist :(

@ And Hian.
IM NOT A GODDAMN NATIONALIST !!!
And im more than Tolerant. The proof is that i havent been banned allready right :D. Alas for your a ex-soldier. I had a vision of your earlier posts. You seem to dont understand my posts completelly, as none of us are "perfect" in english. Meaning saying willing to say something i say another thing and you understand it as even another thing... lol

So we may actually leave it this way, as I cant convice you and you cant me.

Thats how it seems to be. On a side note im not english (Australian), so im not concerned with who won at the end of the day at Crecy, i just find it very interesting, factors involved etc. And then a similar result happens later at Agincourt, the longbowmen prove their worth again.

We might ask sombody to "erase" our "barking" about longbowmans strengths and armors. Might confuse some "users".

Unless you guys dont want it to be gone.

Im not a big fan of erasing things. But i have a question. What do you think guys think about the crossbow unit? I really like the values added to it, great against tin can melee and knights. Anaz, have you shot a powerful crossbow at plate armour at reinactment?

Egyptian longbowmen. I like the unit a lot, its one of the best looking units, but since it isnt actually using a longbow i think its name should change. Pharaoh's bowmen or something suitable.

Ok Tirano

But this time you HAVE to say I am right. Crossbow takes Long to reload. Dont know if it should be as strong as it is. But 1st wave can like cripple morales.

Anaz, have you shot a powerful crossbow at plate armour at reinactment?
1) such weapons are forbidden, such as twohandned mauls, any kind of spiked heavy wepaon (maces and such), kopies (dont know english name, but its a "pike" that knight use for charge attacks), crossbows, and metal gunpowder (dont know what is actually used).
2) Im still alive am i ?

Very accurate weapon, but dont know if it is effective in "rain".

Also crosbow shot from 10 metres (whith steel ending) pirces any wearable armor(not that pauldron and brest plate in fullplates have no unarmored place, giving bolt 2 surfaces to pirce. This mostly immobilies his arm, or make it painfull to move it. But no special wound). Olny hope for those that are being shot is shield(unless pirceing shield bolt hits his hand...ouch). Still crossbow even if wont pirce give a nice "knockback". Dont know if strong enought to knock rider from a horse.

I cant emagine, how crossbow whith its reload work on open battlefield.

Anyway - remember the "leaders" and "Armies" in Civilization 3 ? Why cant we implent this in Civ4. This will make archers defend thirst, than retreat, and than melee units defand. This might require great general presance or new promotion.

PS: Short for Anaztazioch is Anetrith or Anzeo.

Yes i am quite aware of the flaws of the medieval crossbow and the arbalest (siege crossbow). Its a shame they are forbidden in re-enactment, i can understand why along with the very lethal spiked maces and flails.

They certainly had battlefield practicality. Found mention of crossbow units where one fired, a servant reloaded, and another servant held up a large shield to protect them. Attached is a picture of such an arrangment. Making the crossbowman a little safer. Their best benefit was their sheer power.

Although some crossbows (ancient or modern) are drawn using only the unassisted arm strength of the archer, more powerful crossbows required some sort of mechanical device to draw the string. These drawing mechanisms were of many different forms, using levers, ratchets and pulleys in various ways. The use of these devices allowed soldiers to use and fire weapons with a draw force far in excess of what they could have handled with a bow. In the later years of the crossbow it had enough kinetic energy to penetrate any chainmail and most plate armor hit squarely: some reached a draw force of nearly 350 lbf (1600 N), compared to the 60-180lbf (300-900 N) draw force for a longbow. Moreover, crossbows could be kept cocked and ready to shoot for some time with little effort, allowing crossbowmen to aim better and lessen the reaction time to fire compared to a bowman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow

Its only wikipedia, but such force behind the bolts must have skewered many a brave knight. I dont deny a good set of plate could have turned aside many would be deathblows, but a 350 lbf bolt from an arbalest (below) directed at shoulder joints, legs, groin, neck or head would put a knight down.

I believe crossbowmen used the environment and other troops as cover while they reloaded.

@ Los Tirano

Such big shields (lack of better word) were used in middle ages to cover archery units. Not only crossbowmans but also bowmans. But it werent good cover when sieged castle ewas defending whith catapults.

But getting to that banned crossbow from re-inacted battles. Called one of officials, and he said that crossbow is too lethal weapon. I also asked about bows (including longbows). And he said that bows are allowed only if all participaters and all horses are heavy armored (safty and animal rights). Also if we are all in heavy armor... well... only Conan could use a bow in that tuexedo ;).
Back to crossbows:
Took a look at 2 of my book about medival weaponary.
Crossbow you can shoot from hip (dont know if thats the name for shooting from that part of body), making it possible and accurate even in plate armor. So Crossbowmans were actually good also in melee. They could lauch a deadly 1-2 bolts at cavalary, than rech for melee weapon, or 2-4 against foot, than reack for melee. How many shots it depends on terrain and type of crossbow.

XIV - in that centuary crossbow "gained" leavers and such. Earlier you pulled it by hands.
The big shields were held by another soldier. And they were actually shields, not "movable" walls. Still uneffective vs catapult.
Also they were "catapult" crossbows. Instead for bolts, they were launching stones.
Bolts with steel ending could kill from range even 180m (longbow had 90m acording to thiss book). But "could" doesnt mean "will" :). So dont go WTF after not killing sum1 :D

Also what about flaming arrows ? Oil was used as greeks as "greek fire" that cdnt be estingest by water.

Im not a big fan of erasing things. But i have a question. What do you think guys think about the crossbow unit? I really like the values added to it, great against tin can melee and knights. Anaz, have you shot a powerful crossbow at plate armour at reinactment?

Egyptian longbowmen. I like the unit a lot, its one of the best looking units, but since it isnt actually using a longbow i think its name should change. Pharaoh's bowmen or something suitable.
In another thread I make mention of Nubian Archers as a well known/used unit of Pharoah's armies. Maybe an extra promotion for accuracy such as an extra first strike?

@ Los Tirano

Such big shields (lack of better word) were used in middle ages to cover archery units. Not only crossbowmans but also bowmans. But it werent good cover when sieged castle ewas defending whith catapults.

But getting to that banned crossbow from re-inacted battles. Called one of officials, and he said that crossbow is too lethal weapon. I also asked about bows (including longbows). And he said that bows are allowed only if all participaters and all horses are heavy armored (safty and animal rights). Also if we are all in heavy armor... well... only Conan could use a bow in that tuexedo ;).
Back to crossbows:
Took a look at 2 of my book about medival weaponary.
Crossbow you can shoot from hip (dont know if thats the name for shooting from that part of body), making it possible and accurate even in plate armor. So Crossbowmans were actually good also in melee. They could lauch a deadly 1-2 bolts at cavalary, than rech for melee weapon, or 2-4 against foot, than reack for melee. How many shots it depends on terrain and type of crossbow.

XIV - in that centuary crossbow "gained" leavers and such. Earlier you pulled it by hands.
The big shields were held by another soldier. And they were actually shields, not "movable" walls. Still uneffective vs catapult.
Also they were "catapult" crossbows. Instead for bolts, they were launching stones.
Bolts with steel ending could kill from range even 180m (longbow had 90m acording to thiss book). But "could" doesnt mean "will" :). So dont go WTF after not killing sum1 :D

Also what about flaming arrows ? Oil was used as greeks as "greek fire" that cdnt be estingest by water.
A good simulation of crossbowmen and their abilities could be found in Medieval Total War. In that game you had various crossbow units of different nationalities, strengths and levels of technology and it was fascinating watching them in action. Can not wait for Medieval Total War 2; supposedly coming out in November. I will be first in line. :D As a side note maybe all of us who are also interested in Medieval combat can have a multi-player game or two when it comes out? ;)

We might ask sombody to "erase" our "barking" about longbowmans strengths and armors. Might confuse some "users".

Unless you guys dont want it to be gone.
Thats alright, there is room for these kind of discussions on this forum....in fact I love these kind of discussions. By the way I remember playing the Cossacks games a couple of years ago and I remember always choosing to play as Poland. I fell in love :blush: with the medieval Winged Hussars. It was quite a sight to see them charge into battle with lances lowered as they skewered Mongol hordes or the Turkish army in battle. :D

falling in love in Poland. Dont tell me this now.
We had a nice situation.

A member of parlament have recorded a video when our Presidents party member (unofficially, i her private chambers) was trying to bribe other party member into joining. They used money, power, nice places in govermant and something else way beyond my skills to translate. This video was shown yesterday in TV. Today the premier (right after president in Polant goverment, well Prezident and Premier are twin brothers...) he said that this kind of talk is a normal use in politics and calling the corruption is misuse of that word...

Seems as were getting back to communism, so i have a REALLY bad mood... Pay attention to our politics as some are Really funny. Like "You should breed goose, as you cant keep track of a cow"

falling in love in Poland. Dont tell me this now.
We had a nice situation.

A member of parlament have recorded a video when our Presidents party member (unofficially, i her private chambers) was trying to bribe other party member into joining. They used money, power, nice places in govermant and something else way beyond my skills to translate. This video was shown yesterday in TV. Today the premier (right after president in Polant goverment, well Prezident and Premier are twin brothers...) he said that this kind of talk is a normal use in politics and calling the corruption is misuse of that word...

Seems as were getting back to communism, so i have a REALLY bad mood... Pay attention to our politics as some are Really funny. Like "You should breed goose, as you cant keep track of a cow"
Yeah unfortunately a lot of countries are falling back into either communism or facism. I guess a lot of people would want the Cold War back right about now. :(

Yeah unfortunately a lot of countries are falling back into either communism or facism. I guess a lot of people would want the Cold War back right about now. :(

Right ! And don't forget "Religious" Republic.... Churchill was so right when he told us that Democraty is probably not the best political system, but at least the "less worst"...

The Frog.

Right ! And don't forget "Religious" Republic.... Churchill was so right when he told us that Democraty is probably not the best political system, but at least the "less worst"...

The Frog.
What you do not want to live under Sharia? :rolleyes: You are an infidel who needs to be flogged....jailed....banished.....killed.....etc. :lol:

Oh Ankenaton you are so looking for trouble. I like it! Somehow Islamo-fascism doesnt seem like a good idea to me.

Dont forget beheaded.

Oh Ankenaton you are so looking for trouble. I like it! Somehow Islamo-fascism doesnt seem like a good idea to me.

Dont forget beheaded.
I hear you; I better find out where Salman Rushdie is hiding so I can join him. :eek: :lol: "Off with your little head" as the Tulwar separated "The Heretic's" head from his body.

@ Los Tirano
@ Ankenaton
@ Hian the Frog
@ Anaztazioch

(?)Was that about Archery units(?)

Good point. This discussion hasn't been about archery for quite some time now.

WarKirby

@warkirby

your post wasnt about it eighther :D
as mine

Ok, i learned archery myself and can build a longbow in one day ... the real problem is to build fine arrows ... but that is another topic.

Some of you say, bows are deadly weapon even against plate-armor.
Other say, bows doesnt work against armor and are just over-rated.

I say:
Both of you are correct. The bow might be deadly weapon. It all depends on the archer.

Accuracy / Frequence
If u train a lot with a bow you can hit a standing person out of 100 meters without any problems. And to shot 6-10 arrows per minute is also possible. In battles you are not alone ... therefore mostly the number of arrows count - you will hit an enemy - it realy doesnt matter if it is the one you aimed at.

Range
If we talk about a range around 300 meters then this is a quiet balistic flight path. You cannot aim a target like a horse, but u can aim an army. Ever seen Hero? If i remember correct, you see what it means to let arrows rain.

Damage
The damage depends most of the power of the bow. I shot around 40 lbs (20kg), good trained sportmen shot around 60-80lbs, but more isn't nessesary with todays equipment.
I shot in the forest at fake animals. If i hit a tree, my arrow got stuck in it (with only 40 lbs). Therefore i think i can kill a (non-armored) person with my relativ weak bow.
A real strong longbow with over 100 lbs do a lot more damage. But i can't bend such a bow even a little. The string will be just a strait line ... maybe some cm. And i'm sure i cannot got the string on the bow.
Under ideal circumstances such a bow with a good arrow can go trough a platemail. But i think the arrow has to hit in a good angle ... most of the shots will not pierce through a platemail.2

Training
Now we get the most important point: Training. A good archer needs years of training and was realy expansive. Most armys simply don't train their troops over years. And then u have to defend the archers very well ... if mounted knights reach archers without defence they are just ... dead.
So they require time to train, are expansive and you need a good strategie to use them.
The english army was one of the few, who trains a lot of archers ... and this training is the main reason why specially english longbowmen got such strong - even a legend.

One law from the english government was, that every man has to learn archery. And that a father has to buy his son a bow when a reached a certain age. (As a i said before: i bow is a relative cheap weapon - if u dont consume too many arrows)

Conclusion:

If u have only english-well-trained archer on the battlefield a platemail would not be worth so much. But in most battles no side has hundreds of well-trained archers ... so a platemail will give a real good protection. Untrained archers with weaker bows (nobody of us can use a 60 lbs bow) can't pierce a platemail.

Cross Bow / Musket

The advance of a cross bow is the handling. It is much easier to handle this weapon, you dont need years of training. That is the main reason, why you can find cross bows on battlefields - not the higher damage.

This is also the main reason why musket displaced the bow and the crossbow. It is much more easier to shot a musket then a bow ... it is cheaper, you can simply use much more troops, and u dont have to prepare them some years.

Under ideal circumstances such a bow with a good arrow can go trough a platemail. But i think the arrow has to hit in a good angle ... most of the shots will not pierce through a platemail.2

Hit a movin plate armor at long distance. Also fine steel is stronger than iron, and english longbowman use iron grots (thats the Polish word for ip of arrow).
Not to mention that steel plate is 3-4cm thick. Try shooting a longbow at flat 3cm steel on fake animal. Lets see if you can pirce it whith ioron arrow.

But I was on a brotherhood show. Some brotherhood "red loctus of shining star sea" was showing weaponary, armor of only French troops in middle ages. The fine steel armor was used only by generals (very expencive). French army used steel plate, but that steel was a "paper" steel. So longbow did stand a chance against them. They said that fine steel plate was used by French army very late, around XVI centuary.
And i never did longer resarch on French history... Hian surelly knows why :) am i right "The Frog" ?

Anaztazioch,

About plates: French Chivalry and Nobility were true fighters, real horsemen but also lords in the Royal Court.
They used 2 kinds of plate armor.
A first one of fine and low quality steel, and sometimes Iron, but very beautifull and full of heraldric drawing. This armor was made to for "glory", to impress of Nobles,... :smug:
A second type or armor was made of heavy steel. Usually these armors were not made in France, but in Milano (Italia) or Augsburg (Germany) for exemple, were where living the best blacksmiths of Armor and Weapons of Europe at that time. These armor were used in battle.:spear: Only the richest Nobles and Knights could bought these armors. Most were using only "medium quality" plates and sometimes only chainmails.

It was after the Wars of Italy (around 1490-1530) and the conquest of Milano that the French learned how to create high quality armor. Since that time, all our armors are of the greatest quality. They were built in the major cities of France in Royal Factories.:woohoo:

I let you think what you want about our plates:hmm: .... Just come in France, visit our War Museum ( Musée des Invalides in Paris, www.invalides.org ) and have a look in some of our armor. With a bit luck, you can have a look on the Armor of our king François the First (beginning of the 16th century) and the armor of our king Louis XIII (when he was only 9 y.o).:goodjob:

The Frog.

Come to France ? Yuck !!! What kind of a sadist are you to propose ME such a thing !!! :D

But "A first one of fine and low quality steel, and sometimes Iron, but very beautifull and full of heraldric drawing". Well its suicide i say...

Atleast www.invalides.org has english version... But it dont have picures of armor.

Come to France ? Yuck !!! What kind of a sadist are you to propose ME such a thing !!! :D

But "A first one of fine and low quality steel, and sometimes Iron, but very beautifull and full of heraldric drawing". Well its suicide i say...

Atleast www.invalides.org has english version... But it dont have picures of armor.


Anaztazioch,

Yeap, sometimes some knights and Nobles were not rich enough to buy "good" armors. Sure, it was like a kind of suicide...

About www.invalides.org , the english version is not yet finished. Sorry. But you can see an armor. Below, a picture of the armor of our king François the First (beginning of the 16 century) when he was mounted. He was a tall guy (1.95 meter tall), very strong and a lover of Arts. Many of our famous Castle on the river Loire were built when he was king.

Have a look at this:


The Armor of François Ier
Work of Jörg Seusenhofer, blacksmith et Degen Pirger, Plate engraver.
Innsbruck, around 1539-1540

------------------------------Picture below------------------------------------

Steel, gold, leather, textile
Height: 1.99 m ; width : 0.90 m
Height with horse : 2.42 m



The Frog

Anaztazioch,

About plates: French Chivalry and Nobility were true fighters, real horsemen but also lords in the Royal Court.
They used 2 kinds of plate armor.
A first one of fine and low quality steel, and sometimes Iron, but very beautifull and full of heraldric drawing. This armor was made to for "glory", to impress of Nobles,... :smug:
A second type or armor was made of heavy steel. Usually these armors were not made in France, but in Milano (Italia) or Augsburg (Germany) for exemple, were where living the best blacksmiths of Armor and Weapons of Europe at that time. These armor were used in battle.:spear: Only the richest Nobles and Knights could bought these armors. Most were using only "medium quality" plates and sometimes only chainmails.

It was after the Wars of Italy (around 1490-1530) and the conquest of Milano that the French learned how to create high quality armor. Since that time, all our armors are of the greatest quality. They were built in the major cities of France in Royal Factories.:woohoo:

I let you think what you want about our plates:hmm: .... Just come in France, visit our War Museum ( Musée des Invalides in Paris, www.invalides.org ) and have a look in some of our armor. With a bit luck, you can have a look on the Armor of our king François the First (beginning of the 16th century) and the armor of our king Louis XIII (when he was only 9 y.o).:goodjob:

The Frog.
Can definitely Back Froggie on this. I have a friend who is a immigrant from Milan (Milano Italia) who is currently a detective in the NYPD (New York City Police Department) and like our young master Anaz is into chivalry, heraldry and all things relating to ancient/medieval weapons/armor. His two periods of interest are Roman Legionary equipment and the armors created by the Milanese craftsmen. Some of the finest armors ever created. Many of the mercernary troop leaders of the 13th-16th centuries would often bankrupt themselves to get a good set of high quality Milano armor; used to impress the Lords, Princes and Kings who would hire them.

@ Hian

Was there a French noble who was not a fan of the art ?
Nice armor.
Close to mine :D. But i dont have a horse, nor its armor. I hire armored horses for battles/tournaments only. The biggest differance in mine and his armor is that mine has no golden symbols. Also my pauldrons are bigger, protecting back of my neck from the back and jawbone high. And i have a pigface helmet. Now to think of it i remember what i said when i stand up in armor for the first time. It was "ugh".
But this armor is not a full plate to say it. It is missing a plate protecting armpit, one of lethal tagets in human body, mostly by strong bleeding. My armor has these plates.
My armor and shield was made in Gniezno. Helmet bought from Germany, sword, pike from Czech republic, rest weapons are property of our brotherhood. He have a blacksmith that repairs armor, shields and wepaons. But he cant craft weapons or armor. No skills no iron, not good smithy.

Now i got a cracked humerus. Some idiot hit my left arm whith two-handned sword. This tournament allowed the use of iron weapons, but head attacks are counted as crime not break of tournament rules. So belive me kids, whenever some one is swinging a two-handned sword, dodge and pary the attack. I dont know, but i acted like i had a shield... lol

Anyway its off topic. But me and WarKirby are having a discution about Japan Hypaspist replacment in melee unit section, as well as in gunpowder (i love to get off topic...:D)

@ Ankanaton

Many of the mercernary troop leaders of the 13th-16th centuries would often bankrupt themselves to get a good set of high quality Milano armor; used to impress the Lords, Princes and Kings who would hire them.

Well its suicide as well. What use of an armor if you dont fight and dont have money for food... Education sometimes is a good thing.
But the best thing in middle ages is that you could find a 20 year old virgin much much easier than nowdays... But it also has its advanage :lol: :lol: :lol:

@ Exterior

Cross Bow / Musket

The advance of a cross bow is the handling. It is much easier to handle this weapon, you dont need years of training. That is the main reason, why you can find cross bows on battlefields - not the higher damage.

This is also the main reason why musket displaced the bow and the crossbow. It is much more easier to shot a musket then a bow ... it is cheaper, you can simply use much more troops, and u dont have to prepare them some years.

As for crossbow... play The Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion. Got Anvil stables and find Moaiq (or simmilar). He a robes Khajjit. In one of his rumors he says
"Some peapole are wanting a bow that takes too long to reload, and uses special arrows called bolt. Moaiq say they are idiots".

A crossbow was a very accurate, easy in use (even drummers know how to use it... well most drummers) and stronger than bow. Mayby not all crossbows were so strong, it depended in its size, wood, engeinery and (?)weight(?). Another good point it was that it could be used in heavy armor, making it very good for castle siege (but wearing armor longer than 2 hours is painfull trust me).

As for muskets. I dont know how expencive was it back "than". But it was inaccurate, early(not the first one witch had 5% chance of fireing) had low effective range (100 feet), inaccurate again, slow reload, but trained musketman could reload it faster than crossbow, allowing him to put 2 or even 3 shoots at charging cavalary. Also muskets could have bayonet, making it also a melee weapon, giving a musketman chance of defending him self at close range. Another thing is bullets impact. It could easilly knock a knight off the horse (depending on saddle), as well as pirce/broke ribs, steal breath, kill a fly in mid air.

But i only tried a crossbow a few times on fair(bazaar). As for gunpowder, my father has beretta 92, i have airgun walther 90, uncle had rewolver(dont know details).
Also i used beretta 93r, d.eagle, spas-12, ak-47 and some glock (dont know witch one as all seems to look alike). Have real luck, as my friends father is in charge of military accademy, there fore i had such access to these weapons. Normally only handguns are allowed to be used by civilians. But i never got shot, nor spoken to a guy that got shot about being shot.

The sheer power of crossbows, their armour penetrating potential should not be ignored. Hard to criticise a weapon when it is more powerful than the last and the first few shots can be quicker (with multiple crossbows and attendants).

Self repeeater crossbow... Dont know if its truth or myth. Seen some but their invention date is about 1960ad... :D

Anyway, crossbow was an equal rival in weaponary as bow. Surelly it wasnt only becouse it was easier in use. Light crossbow does d8 damage, and heavy crossbow does d10, as shortbow only d6 and longbow d8 :lol:

I take it you know the repeating crossbow used by the chinese is not a myth.

Damages in role-playing games are so completely inaccurate. Crossbows really should be raised and made easier to hit and damage with. But lets not get into that, wrong forum.

I for one am happy at the power of the TR crossbowman. Although another UU for the Romans would be the Genoese crossbowmen. Famed at one time for their skill. Extra strength point to reflect them being better crossbowmen than most others.

I dont know... 7 strength unit whith 50% vs melee requireing no resource might be a bit too strong... as maceman (str 8) will have only 4 str when fighting whith melee unit.

Hit a movin plate armor at long distance. Also fine steel is stronger than iron, and english longbowman use iron grots (thats the Polish word for ip of arrow).
Not to mention that steel plate is 3-4cm thick. Try shooting a longbow at flat 3cm steel on fake animal. Lets see if you can pirce it whith ioron arrow.


After all Civ is a game - and i am the ruler of my nation - and i want to use steel grots / arrowheads :)

As a bowman i dont want to hit "a" moving plate armor - i want to hit just the horde of knights - anyone - anyhow ... The rate of arrows that hit will be low (i think far under 50%) and against well armored people only some of the hitting arrows will do anything ... i estimate only 1 of 20 arrows might do damage against knights. But hey - at least i can do something. And if we call well trained archers expensive - heavy Fine-Steel-Armored Chavalery is hell expensive :)

Ah, i nearly forget, the range of a crossbow is much shorter - the bolts just don't fly as good as an arrow.

And other aspect: You need to build arrows with feathers and arrowheads. I think a fine arrow (and u can only inflict damage with a fine arrow) is more expensive then a bolt. And in war you can make bolts simply out of everything - "Hey, sorry Generals, we need your chair to make bolts."

The melee weapon aspect of Musketmen is important - thx for the hint.

Conlucsion:
I think a good solution might be to add a unique french knight with bonus against archery units ... Everyone will be happy with this (but u will need a forge to build this unit)
And - i think - a malus for musket units against archery units is already in TR.
A first strike for musketmen and cross-bow-men reflect the relativ long reloading time (and don't give musketmen any bombard ability :P)

No need for that new french uu. they can be like every other civ and use musketmen against longbowmen. Or catch them in the open away from forests and hills.

They shouldnt get "a unique french knight with bonus against archery units" because historically french knights were slaughtered by longbowmen. If anything, a slight penalty vs attacking archers should be in order.

Ah, i nearly forget, the range of a crossbow is much shorter - the bolts just don't fly as good as an arrow.

That depends of a bolt. Some are crappy, some are good. You said u make a bow, but its hard to make and arrow. Think bolt is differant ? Thou its shorter (usually) doesnt mean that well crafted cannot fly as good as arrow + they fly faster. But if it goes to effedctive range, yes crossbow has it shorter, as shorter and often lighter bolt doesnt fly in air so smoothlya s arrow. Thats the point why crossbow wasnt a "rain" weapon.

And other aspect: You need to build arrows with feathers and arrowheads. I think a fine arrow (and u can only inflict damage with a fine arrow) is more expensive then a bolt. And in war you can make bolts simply out of everything - "Hey, sorry Generals, we need your chair to make bolts."

You can make arrow also out of everything... But are you talking about effect or quanity ? As you lost one.



I think a good solution might be to add a unique french knight with bonus against archery units ... Everyone will be happy with this.

Think Hian the Frog might be happy whith this, but alas his history knowlage, he wont agree. As he said, the armor used by French knight was low quality, but beautiful. Well crafted was very expansive... like king may afford it, and some lords. Alas my crude plate armor was crafted by 2 blacksmiths in 4 weeks, as i asked it took them 25 days, working 5 hours a day. In that time i had my order was only one, exept 2 long swords, witch take about 8 hours (depanding on quality) to craft by one blacksmith. Now think how long a well crafted armor must be crafted. Not to mention it must have some coloristic beautifull upgrades... As i cant belive a rich French would buy not "fashion" armor.

A first strike for musketmen and cross-bow-men reflect the relativ long reloading time (and don't give musketmen any bombard ability :P)

Ever shot a musket ? Fill it whith powder, put bullet in, some block to increase pressure, than use stick to "hammer" it down. So a first strike... well early muskets used in revolutionary war, had 100 feet range, so first srike ? Maybe only vs melee/mounted units, but not archery, as they got longer range (mayby not archers).

"ite" "shashu" is direct translation of "archer". "yumi-tori" is also related word, maning both "bowman" and "owner of the bow". But i stick to name Archer Ite or shashu.

Not to split also put here some other names to change/add.

Samurai kngiht:
"jooba" (this oo is actually o whith "^" above it" means horse riding. "jobajutsu" military horseback riding technique.
"keima" is knight in chess.
"kishu" is horseman
"naito" and "kishi" both means knight."direct/exact translation". I belive naito is foot, kishi is mounted knight, but not sure.

As for "katana ashigaru":
"kenkaku" is direct translation of "swordsman"

Also "infantry" is "futsuuka" or "hohei".

"sukauto" and "sekkou" are "scout" (not explorer).

crossbow doesnt have translation :D

"chuubou" means galley.

"furige-to" means frigate :lol:

"hassha" means catapult.

Might use this translations as japanese uu names, what you say ?
I didnt post each name in differant threat, to make it all in one place.

Seems a bit too confusing. I don't think it's a good idea.

Even if i like japan culture - i like anime and play a lot of go - i just want to understand what i am reading ... the foreign language of units speaking is enough for my taste ...

Question. Are we all sure that the Japanese never had crossbows? The bow, various types of swords, spears, and later muskets seem to be their weapons. But i am finding it hard to believe they never fielded any crossbowmen. China is a short distance away and it is known that they traded. Philosophy on warfare passed between the two and China had its very long history of cho-ko-nu soldiers, yet was this never adopted even slightly by japan?

I searched for an hour for some hint of a Japanese crossbow, and all I found was a single entry on ebay which had been removed because it was fake.

China, and the Mongols had crossbows, but I don't think it ever took off in Japan.

WarKirby

You are wrong. In the emporer time they import conscription and crossbow from china. The crossbow was the standart weapon for peasants.
The noblemen still use the bow - because they had the training as clan-elite.

After the emporer time the crossbow vanished ... i could not find how long the crossbow is used in japan.

Btw. In the early and "middle" dark age the bow was the main symbol for the warriors in japan. In the late dark age the sword take the more important place.

I just read some about the china Chu-ko-nu. These crossbow can launch ten arrows in fifteen seconds.... without the power or range of a standard crossbow and with no accuracy ... but hey, it seems a powerfull short range weapon. (10 arrows in 15 seconds ... crazy)

EMPORER TIME ?

Jamon (10 000-300 bc)
Yayoi (300bc-300ad)
Kofun (300-710ad)
Nara (710-794)
Heian (794-1185)
Kamakura (1185-1333)
Muromachi (1333-1568)
Momoyama (1568-1600)
Edo (1600-1868)
Meiji (1868-1912)
Taisho (1912-1926)
Showa (1926-1989)
Heisei (1989-now)

So what time are you refering to ?
"In the emporer time they import conscription and crossbow from china"
Even so, TR has mercenaries, and this way you can import crossbow to Japan. Also peasants as army ? Maybe self defand ?

"Btw. In the early and "middle" dark age the bow was the main symbol for the warriors in japan. In the late dark age the sword take the more important place."

Your wrong. Yes, bow and spear (yari, nigina) was main wepaon in Japanese army, most prestigeus, as swords were mostly a shord range alternative weapons, mostly becouse lack of good training (i once said how training looked in medival Japan). And yes sword becama main weapon later, but far later than late dark age as you said. After reinisance. In 1603 Takugawa become shogun and peace time bagan. He also made sword the most respective, honorable and main weapon in army.

And as you said dark ages... dark ages 476AD to 1000AD. So umm mistake or lack of knowlage ?

And if Japan language has no word for crossbow (not even crosuubou witch would be their foreign adopted word as furige-to for frigate).

As for people thinking " i just want to understand what i am reading ... the foreign language of units speaking is enough for my taste ..." why do we have Mujahid ? Is that the English word ? Or Keshik, yari ashigaru, dao cathy.
I say eighter all units should have Enlish name, or try to get their "native" name.

Wish Houman or anyone "high rank" in TR team might say jis word about it, as people will follow their word as blind sheep :lol:

EMPORER TIME ?

Jamon (10 000-300 bc)
Yayoi (300bc-300ad)
Kofun (300-710ad)
Nara (710-794)
Heian (794-1185)
Kamakura (1185-1333)
Muromachi (1333-1568)
Momoyama (1568-1600)
Edo (1600-1868)
Meiji (1868-1912)
Taisho (1912-1926)
Showa (1926-1989)
Heisei (1989-now)

So what time are you refering to ?
Agreed. That is waaay too vague to mean anything. And Exerior, if you're going to contradict a widely held belief, link to a credible source which can back you up. Anyone can say anything on the internet. Unless you provide proof, we have no reason to believe you.

"In the emporer time they import conscription and crossbow from china"
Even so, TR has mercenaries, and this way you can import crossbow to Japan. Also peasants as army ? Maybe self defand ?
Yup. The mercenary thing covers this perfectly.

"Btw. In the early and "middle" dark age the bow was the main symbol for the warriors in japan. In the late dark age the sword take the more important place."

Your wrong. Yes, bow and spear (yari, nigina) was main wepaon in Japanese army, most prestigeus, as swords were mostly a shord range alternative weapons, mostly becouse lack of good training (i once said how training looked in medival Japan). And yes sword becama main weapon later, but far later than late dark age as you said. After reinisance. In 1603 Takugawa become shogun and peace time bagan. He also made sword the most respective, honorable and main weapon in army.

And as you said dark ages... dark ages 476AD to 1000AD. So umm mistake or lack of knowlage ?
Anaztazioch, you say he's wrong, but you fail to mention what was the most prestigious weapon in early dark ages? I understand your English is not so great but could you try to explain?

As for people thinking " i just want to understand what i am reading ... the foreign language of units speaking is enough for my taste ..." why do we have Mujahid ? Is that the English word ? Or Keshik, yari ashigaru, dao cathy.
I say eighter all units should have Enlish name, or try to get their "native" name.
I don't have a problem with some of them, but changing the name of the katana is where I draw the line,

Wish Houman or anyone "high rank" in TR team might say jis word about it, as people will follow their word as blind sheep :lol:
People tend to agree with Houman and Mexico because they do all the work and it is their mod. However I have disagreed with houman several times and I argued him into the ground on the local religions debate.

I am not a sheep.:lol:

Also, anaztazioch, when quoting people, highlight the text and press the quote button which looks like a speech bubble. This puts a box around the quote and makes it look much neater than just putting quote marks around it. Like I did.

WarKirby

Agreed. That is waaay too vague to mean anything. And Exerior, if you're going to contradict a widely held belief, link to a credible source which can back you up. Anyone can say anything on the internet. Unless you provide proof, we have no reason to believe you.

I can give you the source:
http://www.tenshukaku.de/kyuba.htm

Yeah, i know that the emporer time was long - but it isn't a exact time in the source ... the only hint is the "Taika-Reform" ... but i dont know the Taika-Reform

And here the Quote out of the artice:

Nach der Taika-Reform wurde das Militär in Japan in Fußtruppen aus rekrutierten Bauern und berittene Offiziere eingeteilt. Die Bewaffnung der Fußtruppen war die Armbrust, die zusammen mit dem Wehrpflichtsystem aus China importiert wurde. Die Armbrust ist eine mächtige Kriegswaffe, der Gebrauch ist einfach zu lernen, doch die Herstellung ist schwierig und teuer. Der Langbogen ist dagegen einfach herzustellen, jedoch weitaus schwieriger zu handhaben, besonders vom Pferd aus. Dennoch war der Bogen die bevorzugte Waffe der Offiziere. Diese stammten ja aus der Clan-Elite und hatten schon eine lange Tradition mit dieser Waffe.



And as you said dark ages... dark ages 476AD to 1000AD. So umm mistake or lack of knowlage ?


Lack of language knowlage :) It seems i dont know the right translation for "Mittelalter" ... maybe "middle age" ... the "Mittelalter" is going down around 1400-1700 (depends on the region)

I found a reference on crossbows in english wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ichi-no-Tani

At the end of the article it is mentioned:
Ichi-no-Tani is also the last recorded instance in which crossbows were used in a Japanese siege.

One thing for sure: The crossbow don't get the important role in japan, as he has in europe. (aaaahhhh, awful english)

why do we have Mujahid ? Is that the English word ? Or Keshik, yari ashigaru, dao cathy.
I say eighter all units should have Enlish name, or try to get their "native" name.


I understand Mujahid ... don't know why ... it seems to be neither english nor german. But the others i don't get. And if i talk with friends about Civ4 (what i do a lot), i cannot remember the foreign names like "yari ashigaru" and don't get an image out of the name for the unit ... then i have to desribe the unit "japanese swordsmen" and i will do it in my brain ...

I understand Mujahid ... don't know why ... it seems to be neither english nor german. But the others i don't get. And if i talk with friends about Civ4 (what i do a lot), i cannot remember the foreign names like "yari ashigaru" and don't get an image out of the name for the unit ... then i have to desribe the unit "japanese swordsmen" and i will do it in my brain ...

you probably know because mujahid were fighting in the crusades.:)

I like the idea of the real foreign names, I still know what they replace so I will refer to them as a japanese swordsmen. I also talk alot about civ to friends. :goodjob:

The only potential problems i see is the difficulty for getting the names for many units that should get them and (minor problem)maybe the difficulty of not realizing what the unit is in your enemy's "stack" of units(this can be resolved by actually looking at the strenght and attributes when you mouse over/ gives you an idea of the units)

If foreign names were added, you would probably get used to some of the names after playing a while. Foreign names creates a more ethnic feel, i think.

@houman

i like the idea, changed the name of the hyspatist unit with shortswordsmen.:goodjob:

Exerior: I looked at your source, and it was all in german. aagh.

Thankfully, babelfish was there to help and I had it translated in no time. It spoke of a weapon named the Arm Chest which was imported from China. I assume this is the crossbow?

WarKirby

Ichi-no-Tani is also the last recorded instance in which crossbows were used in a Japanese siege.

No info about quanity/quality of crossbow. Also allowing Japan to build crossbowmans is like allowing Cristians to build Mujahids... And gave myn slef a tought to forbid building a religious units in city whith more than just state religion.

Also check this : http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-era-name
Here u got every era last 4 years, are they eras ? Too short to call them that.

And not that crossbow in Ichi-no-Tani is mentioned only in wikipedia and sites that refers to wikipedia source (exact copy). So its like only source. Note that Minamoto force had 3000? and Teira clan had 5000? soldiers. Also spear, sword and bow was honorary weapon and according to Bushido they had to use them, leaving only mercenaries whith crossbow, or some Ronin. Next is not that crossbow, even if existed in japan it was very rare, hard to obtain, shameful to create, therefore must have been expansive leaving only rich a possability to afford. Dont think ronin had money to buy one. Some ninja could use them, but they relied more on stealth, infiltration, assassination rather than siege...


Now off to
@ WarKirby

1) Saying i was wrong is giving the time he said about making sword prestigeus. Late dark ages are 900-1000ad, and it was Ieyasu Tokugawa who made katana and wakizashi more prestigeaus than daikyu. Ieyasu lived in 1542-1616.

2) As for the line whith changing katana name. Note that katana was not the only sword used in combat. Wakizashi, katana, tanto, taisho, daito, no-dachi. All were used in heian. TR has katana ashigaru in ending of Jomon.

More :
The Japanese ashigaru (足軽) were conscripted foot-soldiers of medieval Japan. During the Muromachi period, ashigaru were employed by the shogun as his personal army.
Ashigaru (literally "light-foot", but the word most likely stems from "light armored")
At first the ashigaru were mercenaries or adventurers who were paid only in loot, but eventually some of them became part of local armies as retained warriors. Those who were given control of ashigaru were called ashigarugashira (足軽頭), (literally "ashigaru head"), and were provided with an annual stipend of 200 to 500 koku.

So naming most of Japan units ashigaru is missing whith history right ?


And as for that quotes.. well im mostly using quick replys.

@ Spartan117

The only potential problems i see is the difficulty for getting the names for many units that should get them and (minor problem)maybe the difficulty of not realizing what the unit is in your enemy's "stack" of units(this can be resolved by actually looking at the strenght and attributes when you mouse over/ gives you an idea of the units)

Well it better i say :). Not every army knew whom they shall face. Some times it was a suprice. Like for Incas, lets kill that Spanians, they got no weapons, only some sabres and metal spears (muskets whith bayonet). And than go OMFG they got boomsticks from hell !!! :lol: I say that the less u "know" the game, the better it is ;)

And clicking this "quote" crashes all of my web browsers (iexplorer, opera, mozilla)

Interesting as I was recently thinking about archers, catapults, etc.

I wondered if in real life the environment had an effect. That is if the environment is forest then bombard is not possible. If on a hill (not forested) bombard is much more effective.

Back to archers. I suggest archers have the ability to bombard units (but not city walls) if in an open area (ie not forests or jungles) and after the bombard action allowed to move. The bombard action is only on a single unit of course.

Longbowmen should have more effective bombard action as archers but essentially the same actions.

Catapaults etc do not have the ability to move after their bombard actions and do have collateral damage ability.

But all bombard actions are negated if in forest of jungle terrain. Perhaps this should be if the target is in forest of jungle terrain (like the archer is in the edge of a forest targeting a foe who is in open terrain.

Note that one title is one city. Shoot an arrow from one side of town to the other... Impossible. Longbow has effective range of 80 feet, but its max range can go even up to 160 (perfect bow, angle and wind + arrow). still 160 feet, think how many houses can fit in that ? Not to mention whole town not just settlement. So archers shouldnt have bombard ability + dales couses CTD.

Im also agains early siege weapons to have bombard (exept city). Trechuberts - dont know their range. Now cannon, artillery, these should have ranged. But that is not archery but gunpowder and siege.

As a good trained archer you are able shoot (in a bombard style) much further then 160 feet.
Today the sport archers shoot at 80m on targets as big as beermat (10x10cm). Of course without visor this isn't possible, but a army is bigger ^^.

Wikipedia say this (the range of bow is realistic - says my experience with bows):

English longbow has a effective range around 165 to 228 m (Keyword "English longbows") - if you read a little more about bows you will read, that the "volley attack" / bombard is estimated a little higher.
Trebuchet has a max range around 275 m (Keyword "Trebuchet")

As a good trained archer you are able shoot (in a bombard style) much further then 160 feet.
Today the sport archers shoot at 80m on targets as big as beermat (10x10cm). Of course without visor this isn't possible, but a army is bigger ^^.

Wikipedia say this (the range of bow is realistic - says my experience with bows):

English longbow has a range around 165 to 228 m (Keyword English longbow)
Trebuchet has a max range around 275 m (Keyword Trebuchet)

that is what i wass just about to say.:lol: :goodjob:

165-228M> much more than 160 feet;)

Spartan: we think the same way :)

I suggest to let only high range units bombard from the start. Some need a promotion, others cannot learn it.

Archer - only with promotion
Longbow - yes
horsearcher - no
Crossbow - no
Musket - no
Rifler - only with promotion (or yes ... not sure about it)
Marin - yes
Tank - yes
....

And i think these units can have bombard. They don't have to shoot a city far. If the enemy is at next title, they can go in range, shoot and fall back. Most time the enemy units just moved next to your unit or dont flee from your units. So it means more or less they want to confront your units.


Also nice would be a high range bombard for later siege units (and battleships!) - say 2 titles. This way you can hold your siege units behind your main line, might get nice tactical deep.

@Exerior: I proposed this exact same thing a while back, and got shouted down for the same reasons.

But you have the figures to prove it, and I back archer bombardment 100%.

However, riflemen and marines? I think not. You can only throw a grenade so far, and you can shoot farther.

Also, I think it should be available to horse archers with a promotion. And I agee with tanks too.

WarKirby

Right now i am programming on a test-bombard version for archers ... mostly to get a food in modding civ4 :)

165 to 228 m... Thats betwean my house and supermarket. Still to small range especially Spain has 6 titles height.

Archers does have range, Longbowmans, they would be way too powerfull, well defanding and bombard, all armies in world would have longbowman as majority. Horsearcher... know that Japanese horse archers used same bows as longbowman did (daikyu) so they should have same range. Accuracy shouldnt be a much problem as their horses were very small. Crossbow no bombard... like they werent used as siege wepaons... bombard only on cities and forts. Musket well try and aim this on longer range than melee... Rifle they still had short range, even in WW I. Marine, how much damage you think a nade will do... a frag nade vs "duck and cover". And how far do you think they can throw ? Thats why there were mortars... Tank, tank is not altillery.

Units should differ from each other much more, only than true tactics can be made in the game (exept stack and rush).

I think - or hope - you don't get my point.

I don't think as bombard as it is for city siege. So i call the new unit vs unit bombard "distant strike". It is much the same as air strike. Your units can attack from distance and fall back again, without getting in the lesser range of the enemy unit.


Example 1:

A hord of Archers run to an enemy, shoot some arrows and falling back. This is a distant strike attack from an archery unit.

If the enemy are normal melee units on open field they don't have a change to fire back.
If the enemy are other archers they can fire back.


Example 2:

A artillary unit distant strike has a range of 2 fields.

If they use the 1 space distance and attack a Marin this way, the Tank cannot fire back.
If they use only the half range (the next field to Marin), the Tank can fire back.


Backfire

The change to fire back is depends mostly on the terrain and the range. First we only use open field. Everything with a range over 100m will gain the distant strike ability with one title range or fast units (horsearcher).
To get a two title range, you need modern artillery units - you need the ability to fire out of sight.

To represent the diffrent range between an archer, longbowman and tank the units get a range value. If you distant strike a melee unit, the range value doesn't matter at all. The melee unit cannot fire back (maybe mounted units with special promotion).

If you have more then the double range, there will be no backfire.
If your range is higher, the backfire will be weak.
If your own range is shorter then the target's range, you will recieve the full backfire.
If your own range is much shorter then the target's range, your own attack is weaker.

Here is an example table for a longbowman distant strike a crossbow unit, an archer, a longbowman, marin and tank (both on open field):

Your Range | Target Range | Backfire
-----------+--------------+---------
200m | 70m | none
200m | 140m | weak: 50%
200m | 200m | nearly full: 80%
200m | 300m | full: 100%
200m | 2000m | full: 100%, attack: 50%


Here is an example table for a artillary unit. Distance is the title distance.

Your Range | Target Range | Distance | Backfire
-----------+----------------+----------+----------
10 km | 200 m (archer) | 2 | none
10 km | 2000 m (tank) | 2 | none
10 km | 2000 m (tank) | 1 | weak: 50%
10 km | 10 km | 1 | both full
10 km | 10 km | 2 | nearly full: 80%


A unit can only backfire one time between the turns. A unit can also backfire, if the unit has moved last turn.

Cover

The distant strike will be weaker, if the target is in forrest, city, town, hills, ... maybe we simply use the defence bonus of the unit.

The backfire will be weaker, if your units have cover.

Damage

Not as air strike, you can kill units. I suggest a efficents of distant strike around 30-40%. This means, two same strong units do 30-40% to each other with one distant strike.

Melee for Range units

Because range units will be much more powerfull then melee units, they need to get a big malus against melee units in melee fights. Archers simply can't do mach against cavalery in melee combat. I suggest a malus around -50% against melee units (depends on the unit type) will make it.

Range in normal fight

If you attack the classic way (move one unit onto another) with range units, the new Range value doesn't matter. Higher range is already represented by higher combat strength and the direct attack is the base for the combat strength.
And your units will fight until one unit die - simply the classic way. I don't want to make changes (beside balancing) here.

@ exerior

[1] Are you going to code that ?

[2] Are you going to ask Houman to do this ?

[3]
Example 1:

A hord of Archers run to an enemy, shoot some arrows and falling back. This is a distant strike attack from an archery unit.

If the enemy are normal melee units on open field they don't have a change to fire back.
If the enemy are other archers they can fire back.

Isnt that "withdraw chance" ?
But if you want archers to attack, hurt enemies not hurting them selves, wouldnt it make archers PERFECT ? Like siege weapons can attack, but defanding is suicide, they need cover. Now archers dont need it + they are mostly defancive.

[4]
Melee for Range units

Because range units will be much more powerfull then melee units, they need to get a big malus against melee units in melee fights. Archers simply can't do mach against cavalery in melee combat. I suggest a malus around -50% against melee units (depends on the unit type) will make it.

Go to the 1st page of this threat and read ALL discusion whith me Hian the Frog and Los Tirano. This will tell you i had close idea, but not good, as longbows will suck indefandoing cities vs melee and melee must 1st get close, than breach walls/get on top of houses where longbows camp, run up the hill, cross river. This will loose its relism.

I had idea for ranged bombardemnt in sea units (archers bombarding from galleys), but the distance is too long says Hian the Frog, and he was right.



And just to bring it up. Not only it is hell of work to make this happen, its hell of work to make AI use this, and its beyond the lifetime of satan to make this bug free... Even for Houman and Mexico.

[1] Are you going to code that ?


I am studying computer sience and do programming stuff since 6 years. I will try to do it. But don't know, if i can spare enough time.


[2] Are you going to ask Houman to do this ?


If he like the idea, he can programm it. But i think Houman want code other things first. And the idea of yourself should be implementet by yourself. Otherwise the gameplay sucks often.


Isnt that "withdraw chance" ?
But if you want archers to attack, hurt enemies not hurting them selves, wouldnt it make archers PERFECT ? Like siege weapons can attack, but defanding is suicide, they need cover. Now archers dont need it + they are mostly defancive.


Not realy. A Unit withdraw, if the unit is going to lose otherwise.

It wouldn't make archers perfect. If you distant strike a melee unit aproaching your troops, you consume your action for the archer this turn. The next turn, the melee unit can attack your archer.
Because you do not kill the melee unit (with equal strength) with distant strike, the melee unit will get a chance to melee fight with your archers - if the archers are not covered.


Go to the 1st page of this threat and read ALL discusion whith me Hian the Frog and Los Tirano. This will tell you i had close idea, but not good, as longbows will suck indefandoing cities vs melee and melee must 1st get close, than breach walls/get on top of houses where longbows camp, run up the hill, cross river. This will loose its relism.


The distant strike would "strech" the fight over some titles of map. The archer got a "real" first strike, before they get under attack. I think this already simulate the "running to walls and get close" and so on.

And you can also use archers to kill the archer with distant strike.


I had idea for ranged bombardemnt in sea units (archers bombarding from galleys), but the distance is too long says Hian the Frog, and he was right.


Don't thought about this. Only late sea units should be able to bombard 2 fields - like artillary.



And just to bring it up. Not only it is hell of work to make this happen, its hell of work to make AI use this, and its beyond the lifetime of satan to make this bug free... Even for Houman and Mexico.

Bug free ... there is nothing like bug free in this world :)

The AI programmig will be my biggest problem - i think. But i hope to cushion it a little bit, because i don't make big changes on the current system, only add stuff. And the distant strike works nearly the same way as "air strike". I am sure, i can re-use big parts of code.

And i don't want others to code it. I am sure Mexico will help me with some things (e.g. i got the problem that air units got my new distant strike buttom ... not the longbowman).

First of all: Thx Anaztazioch :)

If he like the idea, he can programm it. But i think Houman want code other things first. And the idea of yourself should be implementet by yourself. Otherwise the gameplay sucks often.

This also mean will he implent it in WTR.

And read all i Frog and Los Tirano did. Just read it, might make you come up whith something new.

And you misunderstand in [4]. I wanted to make archers weaker vs melee, it was matter of disadvantage (-x%). But than he came up whith battle of Cracy.