Archer Units
- Thread starter Houman
- Start date
WarKirby
Arty person
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
There could maybe be a monetary cost for this action for the large scale waste of arrows.
WarKirby
Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
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.
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.
Anaztazioch
Hit in the head too much
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
??? 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
Spartan117
Immortal
Hian the Frog said:Hi all,
I suppose that Houman will don't like my opinion
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.
dont comment.
What are their attributes? i forgot and i let my friend borrow the game for a while.
thanks..
Anaztazioch said: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
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.
MindProphetX
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 61
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...storm6436 said:
Los Tirano
God-King
@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.
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.
Anaztazioch
Hit in the head too much
Im in middle of attantion again 
@ 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).
@ 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).
Los Tirano
God-King
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.
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.
Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
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
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
Los Tirano
God-King
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.
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.
Anaztazioch
Hit in the head too much
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....
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....
Los Tirano
God-King
"Note that Longbow CANNOT pirce fine steel armor as French knight had." Anaztazioch
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?
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?
Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
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
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
Spartan117
Immortal
hello
calm down everybody..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow
http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html
interesting longbows are seen as midieval machine guns...
calm down everybody..
wikipedia said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow
Robert E. Kaiser said:
http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html
interesting longbows are seen as midieval machine guns...
Spartan117
Immortal
the best of the bows
the famous mongol composite bow
http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm
after seeing this. i think maybe mongol longbow should be stronger a little
bit...
the famous mongol composite bow
some website:D said:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm
after seeing this. i think maybe mongol longbow should be stronger a little
bit...
Los Tirano
God-King
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.
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.
Spartan117
Immortal
Los Tirano said:
funny i didnt actually look at the whole thing
i will tend not to go on the wikipedia so much iguess...since "anybody" could edit it.
Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
Los Tirano, Spartan117,
Very interesting posts about bows.
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
. "Free attacks" about nationality, religion, skin color,....make me crazy. 
![[pissed]](/images/smilies/pissed.gif "Pissed [pissed]")
The Frog.
Very interesting posts about bows.
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
. "Free attacks" about nationality, religion, skin color,....make me crazy. The Frog.
