Archery units slaughtering firearms units

[Ralgar]

The Black Army of Hungary.

There are many historic examples in which early muskets were decisive weapons:

- A few hundred conquistadors stomped through the Americas
- The Ottomans Janissaries totally owned persian bowmen and horse archers
- In Japan, muskets were introduced in 1543 by Portuguese merchantmen. After the Battle of Nagashino (1575), "arquebuses became a standard military asset in Japanese warfare. It is often cited as a turning point in Japanese warfare"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nagashino
- The Battle of Cerignola, fought on April 28, 1503, between Spanish and French armies. It is noted as the first battle in history won by gunpowder small arms.

If you have an counter example in which longbowmen own even early and unreliable Muskets, please post it! In reality english longbowmen were really that: english. In the many european wars the bow proofed useless and battles were dominated by cavalry & pikemen (swiss mercenaries, german Landsknechts).

 

[Mustakrakish]

That's nothing. My stealth bombers would routinely take damage bombing units such as longswordsmen. There's actually animation of them throwing torch-sticks in the air and hitting the stealth bomber.

WHAT!? That's it! Now I'm officially disappointed in the game! I would give the game 9/10, but now 1/10!!!

@ TheMeInTeam How do you like the game? Wanted to know the opinion of the "Let's play" guy...

 

[Sonereal]

If you have an counter example in which longbowmen own even early and unreliable Muskets, please post it! In reality english longbowmen were really that: english. In the many european wars the bow proofed useless and battles were dominated by cavalry & pikemen (swiss mercenaries, german Landsknechts).

Why aren't people thinking this rationally?

All the European wars proved was that musketmen were easier to train, not that the musket is superior to longbowmen.

Trust me, 200 longbowmen vs 400 musketmen would see the longbowmen win. The ability to fire faster and fire farther is a big deal. Please read the thread.

1. Conquistadors rampaged through Central and South America because the populations were greatly reduced by diseases.

2. Ottomans succeeded because they were one of the first countries to militarize gunpowder. Oh, and this.

More problematic for the Safavids was the powerful Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, a Sunni dynasty, considered the active recruitment of Turkmen tribes of Anatolia for the Safavid cause as a major threat. To counter the rising Safavid power, in 1502, Sultan Bayezid II forcefully deported many Shi'as from Anatolia to other parts of the Ottoman realm. In 1514, Bayezid's son, Sultan Selim I marched through Anatolia and reached the plain of Chaldiran near the city of Khoy, and a decisive war was fought there (Battle of Chaldiran). Most sources agree that the Ottoman army was at least double the size of that of Ismāil[57], however, what gave the Ottomans the advantage was the artillery which the Safavid army lacked. According to R. M. Savory, "Salim's plan was to winter at Tabriz and complete the conquest of Persia the following spring. However, a mutiny among his officers who refused to spend the winter at Tabriz forced him to withdraw across territory laid waste by the Safavid forces, eight days later"[57].Although Ismāil was defeated and his capital was captured, the Safavid empire survived. The war between the two powers continued under Ismāil's son, Shāh Tahmāsp I (q.v.), and the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman I, until Shāh Abbās (q.v.) retook the area lost to the Ottomans by 1602

Muskets wasn't the deciding factor. It was the fact that the Ottomans outnumbered the Persians at Chaldiran anyway and the fact the Ottomans had cannons. Yes, cannons. The same cannons that leveled the walls of Constantinople and the Safavids lacked.

3.

Oda Nobunaga's innovation was the wooden stockades and rotating volleys of fire which led to a decisive victory at Nagashino.

This doesn't prove any victory over archers. As a matter of fact, it proves that in the face of rotating volley fires, cavalry charges fail but even then that doesn't work since cavalry charges were a norm up until WW1. This is the case of the Ottomans and the skillful use of a weapon but not proof of superiority over another.

4. That battle doesn't prove superiority of muskets over archers. It just proves that French doctrine relied too heavily on heavy cavalry which was a problem as well during the Hundred Years War against the English. Oh, and the Spanish had 20 cannons and were heavily entrenched.

 

[bestbrian]

Conquistadors' victory owed as much to steel, horses, and, most importantly, brilliant diplomacy, as gunpowder and germs (not to sound like a book title, or anything).

Cortez really was a master of realpolitik.

 

[pcasey]

If you are using musketmen than you should have some cannons.. right?

18th century warfare was based around the use of cannons and muskets. Not just muskets, or just cannons. So what you need to do is bring some cannons to the fight. When you do have battle where there is some infantry men, make sure your musket men are at a distance and fire their asses away.

Very simple.

It really is very simple.

Muskets, mini rifles and bolt action rifles are ranged weapons.
They kill things by shooting out little projectiles at high speed, striking distant targets with lethal force.

They should be modelled as ranged weapons in the game engine.

Treating them as melee weapons along with clubs, swords and pikes, is silly, especially when bows and arrows are modelled as ranged weapons.

There's no defense for treating a musket as a melee weapon.
There's even less defense for treating a mini rifle as a melee weapon.
Its pure madness to treat a modern bolt action rifle as a melee weapon while modelling a bow as a ranged weapon.

 

[TLF]

Early rifles were very inaccurate and took a long time to load.
If they hit, then the damage they did was much greater than what an arrow can do.

Accurate arrow fire can defeat inaccurate rifle fire, especially if the archers have decent cover.

Once rifles reached a decent level of development then they became superior.

 

[pcasey]

Early rifles were very inaccurate and took a long time to load.
If they hit, then the damage they did was much greater than what an arrow can do.

Accurate arrow fire can defeat inaccurate rifle fire, especially if the archers have decent cover.

Once rifles reached a decent level of development then they became superior.

Dude, its not just muskets and early rifles.
The game models *industrial era* infantry, armed with bolt action, magazine fed, battle rifles with ranges > 1000 yards as melee weapons.

 

[Duuk]

Realism aside, the problem lies in the fact that there is a disincentive to upgrade units in a game that is all about tech upgrading.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Realism aside, the problem lies in the fact that there is a disincentive to upgrade units in a game that is all about tech upgrading.

Duuk!

 

[Ralgar]

All the European wars proved was that musketmen were easier to train, not that the musket is superior to longbowmen.

Trust me, 200 longbowmen vs 400 musketmen would see the longbowmen win. The ability to fire faster and fire farther is a big deal. Please read the thread.

I did read the thread and disregard it completely. You picture two armies in an open field with the musketman marching into their doom. But both were best used from a defensive position.

Wikipedia:

A longbow corps was vulnerable to ambush until its defensive barricade was complete. Consequently they were often deployed behind physical barricades, such as stakes and poles driven into the ground; at Agincourt, they were deployed behind boggy ground. This practice discouraged offensive battle tactics because the longbow was most effective when an opposing army charged.

A longbow can't be fired from a prone or kneeling position and the concentrations of fire achieved by close order formations in two or three ranks would not have been possible. It is difficult to fire a longbow from a concealed position. Its high trajectory means that in overgrown areas such as the wilderness many shots will strike branches and similar obstacles.

If I had to defend a fortified position I would rather have muskets than longbows.

 

[pcasey]

<snip>
If I had to defend a fortified position I would rather have muskets than longbows.

Actually, I'd consider using the longbows if my option was "you have to defend with either 1000 trained longbow archers or 1000 trained musketeers".

Historically though, that wasn't the math. A battle archer was a lifetime profession that took a decade or more of training. A musketeer could be trained up in a few months. So the actual model is something like:

"you can defend either with 10 trained longbow archers or 300 musketers". Given that math I'd do what all the european armies did at the time, opt for the musketeers.

To actually model this in game, you could give both muskets and bows a ranged attack, but make muskets dramatically cheaper and faster to train.

The reality is that all the world's armies shifted from archery to musketry. They didn't do this because they were stupid; they did it because it was the strongest army they could build with the resources available.

In the game, you're actually better off sticking with longbows even after bolt action rifles deploy. Its madness.

 

[vdogamez]

Well, how wide is a hex? In order to have a ranged weapon in this game it would have to be capable of firing accurately over a distance greater than one hex. My calculations put a hex at around 30 km across. Nothing therefore can go long range until at least artillery.

 

[digitalcraft]

Depends on what size map you're using.

 

[pcasey]

Well, how wide is a hex? In order to have a ranged weapon in this game it would have to be capable of firing accurately over a distance greater than one hex. My calculations put a hex at around 30 km across. Nothing therefore can go long range until at least artillery.

True enough, note also that the english longbow outranges cannon and equals the range of field artillery .

Oddly enough the fact that ranged units have absurd ranges based on the game geography doesn't bother me too much. Its gives combat a more tactical feel to have units with different capabilities on the board.

What bugs me is the gross inconsistency of what the game defines as ranged vs melee.

Well, that an the fact that a large number of low tech ranged units seem to be tactically superior to even industrial era infantry.

 

[digitalcraft]

I agree. I can suspend disbelief enough that there are archers shooting over the Andes but for gameplay, it's really lame that units you have to advance tech to get are tactically inferior to previous age units. It's lame that this really big technology revolution in terms of history and the game is treated as melee. Melee guns.

 

[Auncien]

Pre-rifled firearms are REALLY slow and very short-range. Longbows could easily take them out from cover.

 

[pcasey]

Pre-rifled firearms are REALLY slow and very short-range. Longbows could easily take them out from cover.

In this game, bolt action, magazine fed rifles are melee weapons.

Still want to make that argument?

 

[Callonia]

Why are the OP mad about his brightly colored riflemen cannot make it across the open terrain to shoot at his targets?





You see enemy fielding alot of archery units, u should understand that he does not want to engage you directly where he is weak, so, figure out how to engage him directly instead of marching your men to their doom.

And plus, do you even see your riflemen wearing armor plus carrying shields at all?

I don't know about you but, arrows have easy time piercing cotton jackets and whatever. If you really hate the damage from the archery, well , give them shields then instead of telling them to use their rifles as protection.

It's no assault rifle.

The pictures will help you understand why they can be hurt well, huge moving boxes of target practice can take serious damage from artillery. Aim a cannon, and see a single cannonball rip open ranks.

 

[pcasey]

<snip>

The pictures will help you understand why they can be hurt well, huge moving boxes of target practice can take serious damage from artillery. Aim a cannon, and see a single cannonball rip open ranks.

You're taking game screenshots from a game that models a napeoleonic tactical system.
Napoleonic warfare hinged on the complex interplay of firepower (line infantry and artillery) and shock (bayonet charges and cavalry).

If infantry dispersed into open order, it improved its survivability in fire combat, but was a sitting duck to cavalry or a dense infantry charge.

Conversely, if infantry backed itself into a dense square it was invulnerable to cavalry but a sitting duck for other infantry or cannon.

Linear infantry tactics were something of a compromise that gave good firepower and tolerable protection against shock tactics.

Napoleonic troops advanced in dense order because the napoleonic battlefield had significant shock elements in it and hence the dense masses of troops were required.

In other tactical situations though troops could, and did, adopt open order and skirmish tactics. The french, in particular, were famous for this, deploying part of the battle line in advance of the main force as a skirmish force to attrit any advance, then falling back on the main line of threatened with a shock charge,

To assume that all musket armed troops must at all times advance in tight order is simply incorrect.

 

[vdogamez]

Actually, I misread the area of a hex by a factor of ten. It appears that one hex is approximately 10000 square kilometers (I used the land area figures in the demographics menu), which gives an inner diameter (The distance from one edge of the hex to the other) of 107.457 km. That's even harder to fire over! Not even modern artillery rounds can go that far. You'd need a missile launcher.