Crossbows and Arquebuses (Arquebi?)

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

boring ones

 

[Seventh Star]

How about we have have crossbows and longbows at t3, arbequses as 't3.5' normal units upgrading from xbows, and bring back the heavy crossbow unit. (think a repeating arbalest here).

 

[Sureshot]

i like:
archers>longbows>marksmen
archers>crossbows>arquebus
as the unit upgrade path, makes the most sense to me, one path for skill and training, the other for improved weaponry for the masses

 

[EverNoob]

Also, as a side note, I should think crossbowmen and longbowmen would be allowed to use mithril, if they are allowed to use iron...............

Using fantasy world "logic" I'm not sure that's feasible. If one supposes that mithril is a rare metal, it's not something you'd have enough of to make a ton of arrows or bolts with. As opposed to a single melee weapon.

I'm just assuming mithril is a rare metal in FfH as it usually is in most fantasy settings. Unlike iron, which is fairly common but just required the technology to extract and manipulate properly.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, with mithril it almost seems like youd want to be shot at with them and that people wouldnt want to waste it, "id kill you, but you're not worth the mithril itd take!"

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I concur about you archer upgrade paths (except that I really wish that the marksman promotion let you select your target, and wouldn't want to waste my longbowmen on somehting that can't take out the stronger defender of a stack.) I also think that crossbowmen and longbowmen should not go obsolete.

It might be interesting if there were some very powerful mithril wielding archers that cost you a huge amount of gold whenever you actually use them.

Interesting, but probably not the kind of thing you would want to use except for the novelty, and probably not worth adding.

Personally, I don't think it is appropriate for entire armies to get mithril weapons either. I'm playing around with changing it so that instead of automatically getting the weapons promotions with the appropriate resources, resources, techs, and for some of them buildings allow spells that give the weapons, which cost gold. I've added several types of weapons (copper, bronze, brass, iron, steel, dwarven steel, Mithril, Galvorn, silver, lead, nullstone) with different strengths and weaknesses, and very different coats. Iron isn't better than bronze/brass (but much cheaper) Mithil is easily the best but quite costly, Nullstone is costly and gives magic immunity, lead gives magic resistance but a chance to poison the unit, Galvorn is the best on the offense, silver is very good vs werewolves, etc. Different weapons also are more/less vulnerable/immune to rust, while some will rust randomly.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

I dunno, I've ran mithril armies with hundreds of units with the things. And come on, how much mithril would you need for the tip of an arrow or quarrel as opposed to a sword/axe/mace. (and if you make armor out of the stuff......... well......)

Besides, I also mean it as a game balancer, since I almost never build the archery units once I get mithril, (actually, I almost never build archery units period, since I'd rather just go the metal route) preferring just to spam champions out. I think almost everyone else does this as well.


Sureshot, I like your upgrade path, and second it.

 

[EverNoob]

I dunno, I've ran mithril armies with hundreds of units with the things. And come on, how much mithril would you need for the tip of an arrow or quarrel as opposed to a sword/axe/mace. (and if you make armor out of the stuff......... well......)

True the amount of mithril for one arrow or quarrel is small, but who knows how many arrows an archer fires in his career. I'm pretty sure it's many times more metal than a sword and armor put together.

I think the problem with the Arquebus is part of the larger issue of the Archer line of units:

If you go down the machinery path, there's a huge gap between the Archer and Arquebus/Crossbowman. You're essentally stuck with the Archer until you get to the end of that tech line. The Longbowman is between the Archer and Arquebus/Crossbowman but is on an separate tech line, plus it's very beaker intensive for what you get.

Sureshot's idea sounds pretty good. It's similar to the old archery-machinery upgrade path in .25 which was archer -> crossbowman -> arquebus OR heavy crossbowman. Anyone know why it was changed?

 

[it-ogo]

archers>longbows>marksmen
and
archers>crossbows
are OK.

But arquebus are strongly out of line. Arquebus used mainly buckshot that mean very short range (melee?) and maybe collateral damage (cannon?). And it is cheaper and easier to make then crossbow. Finally gunpowder was replacement for both archery and melee.

So, as Sureshot said, previous system with archers>crossbows>heavy crossbows was better in logic: marksman line provided progress in skill and training while crossbow line provided progress in machinery (crossbowman doesn't need much skill, crossbowmaker does ).

I agree with thesis that arquebus are better to be unique for dwarves.

 

[ZhugeTien]

Crossbows faced several disadvantages compared to even the earliest handgonnes (as they were called). A crossbow bolt could be stopped by armor, whereas only the heaviest and most expensive armors (referred to as "armor of proof") had a chance to deflect a slug travelling at many times a crossbow bolt's speed. Sure, they were not accurate as crossbows, but they really didn't have to be. A man could conceivably still do combat after suffering a hit from a crossbow, particularly if said man wore any sort of armor. A man who was shot by a slug even in the extremities faced nerve trauma and blood loss of a much deadlier sort. The famed longbowmen from the battle at Agincourt had arrowheads of cheap iron which it has been shown repeatedly would bend on impacting steel armor such as what the French knights and footmen wore. Those longbowmen most likely have the muddy ground and superior terrain to thank for their victory, as their bows would have most likely been quite useless against such well-armored foes as the French knights. If crossbows truly had been superior to the first handgonnes, the Thirty Years' War would not have seen the advent of gunpowder weapons being used on such a large scale.

Gunpowder>crossbows Crossbows are actually inferior to longbows on a one-to-one basis, for the most part. It was just much easier to train men to fire a crossbow.

On an interesting historical note, the Vatican actually outlawed crossbows for many years in the Middle Ages. The crossbow was thought to be capable of destroying the world, as "even a woman could fire a crossbow."

And yes, technically, the plural of arquebus should be arquebi, for my vote.

 

[it-ogo]

Crossbows faced several disadvantages compared to even the earliest handgonnes (as they were called). A crossbow bolt could be stopped by armor, whereas only the heaviest and most expensive armors (referred to as "armor of proof") had a chance to deflect a slug travelling at many times a crossbow bolt's speed.

That is like the difference between swordsman and maceman: sword is not so effective against heavily armoured warrior as mace or morgenstern but looks more noble. And now champions in FFH use swords. Arquebusiers don't feel like elite crossbowmen.

Nobody knows exactly what is original spelling: "hackbuss", "hakbusch", "arquebus", "arquebuse", "archibuso", "arcabouza"... And plural of which language should be used. But I am pretty sure that antique Romans did not use this weapon.

 

[Mortenart]

A crossbow bolt could be stopped by armor

The advent of good quality armour piercing arrow and bolt heads (made from hardened composite iron/steel) meant that even plate armour was not invulnerable to long/crossbows.

 

[Tarquelne]

As for vanilla civ, again I'd quote some rather obscure medieval warfare stuff, but I would have assumed that there were afew arquebus support guys attached to the units themselves, rather than formed into a kind of independant corps. I can't ever recall an instance of a massed arquebus shquare or something being effective. (but if I'm wrong, please tell me!)

I can't think of a case of arquebus being used independent of melee support - or fortifications - but by at least the Battle of Pavia there were examples of massed arquebuses being supported by melee-armed men, not arquebuses lending support to a melee unit. Pavia, and battles in Japan and Korea (where I think it was used later) credit massed arquebus fire as a key factor.

Arquebus' make pretty good sense for late FFH2 units. (Well, if you think it's sensible to have gunpowder units at all. ) They fit well with the massive late-game armies Civ is prone to: As late-game units you can assume there's a larger urban population, and just larger populations in general. So there's not as many guys raised in the saddle or hardened by hunting for the pot. An arquebuser just needs to be well drilled. The larger population means you can field them en mass, and they're facing a mass army. This will give them a decent chance at actually hitting something.

Some possible tweaks:

Lower defense value but give double fortification bonuses. (Or start with the +40% hill defense promotion.)

Lowish-morale rating. (I read that some sort of morale system will be added, but that seems to good to be true...)

The "Heavy" promotion. (To show that it's lots of guys with more demanding supply needs than most units and just can't move well.)

Penalty vs. Hero units. (Poor accuracy.)

New UU for the malakim to go with their Hero: Jezail... err... "Jezailiers"? They use a Jezail rather than a arquebus. The Jezail is longer, fires a heavier ball, might be rifled... and is really a type of musket rather than a type of arquebus. Anyway, it's the gun that gave the British such a rotten time in Afghanistan the first time they took a crack at it. It's range was much longer than the Brown Bess, and it was more accurate. The UU could just have higher combat stats, but terrain-bonus promotions or anything that reflects ambush-ability would be appropriate.

I'd say the arquebus is easily more effective than a longbow or crossbow. That's why people swtiched from bows to firearms, see? But that increased effectiveness isn't unqualified. Well trained longbowmen were probably better - the trouble was finding enough longbowmen. A crossbow might actually require less training, was more weather resistant (not that either weapon had much use in bad weather), be easier to make, supply and maintain, and more accurate... but fired less quickly, fired a less damaging projectile, and (I'm pretty sure) had a lower range than massed arquebus fire.

 

[it-ogo]

That is the problem. Crossbow is a final version of archery weapon which has no essencial constructive improvement up to now. It is perfect and polished. While arquebus is the beginning of the firearms. It is evidently primitive and needs long way of refining. So if we speak about ultimate end-of-game weapon the arquebus is bad example even if it is more effective then crossbow. Crossbow and longbow may be perfect as they are while arquebus is just a first step.

 

[Farmer Bobathan]

I can't think of a case of arquebus being used independent of melee support - or fortifications - but by at least the Battle of Pavia there were examples of massed arquebuses being supported by melee-armed men, not arquebuses lending support to a melee unit. Pavia, and battles in Japan and Korea (where I think it was used later) credit massed arquebus fire as a key factor.

Maybe arquebi could be almost like great commanders, attaching to a unit giving them some sort of boost. Or they could be used alone but be weakened versions of what they are now. Maybe even you could add an arquebussier to the unit graphics.

 

[eerr]

speaking of guns, do you know what range a pirate with a handgun shoots?
(in the days when pirates still use swords and defensive daggers)

 

[Lord Bayushi]

...In game design terms we wanted a weak t4 unit that would allow some military options outside of national units, especially on huge maps where a battle on one front that was consuming your national units would lead to a sweep on another front that was still defended by t3 untis you couldn't upgrade (because of national limits). Its also easier on the AI who isn't as good at evening out his national units as human players are.

Okay, game balance-wise, I buy it, because the AI has enough disadvantages and vanilla Str 10 units it can handle. Still, I get really tired of seeing so many guns at the end of a fantasy game. Sigh.

Anyway, I didn't start this post to be a pros and cons of early ranged weapons debate, but here are my thoughts:

Longbows: Relatively simple to produce, difficult to train with, high rate of fire compared to crossbows and arqubuses, capable of arcing fire, effective against all but the most heavily armored targets.

Crossbows: More mechanically complex and difficult to produce, easy to train with, slow rate of fire compared to a longbow, incapable of arcing fire, effective against all but the most heavily armored targets.

Arquebuses: Very mechanically complex and requiring rare resources to produce, easy to train with, but still very inaccurate, slowest rate of fire compared to other weapons, incapable of arcing fire, effective against almost any target (if you could hit it).

Longbows are extremely effective ranged weapons, that require little in the way of resources and are very flexible in the field. A rain of arrows from behind a wall of defenses is a nightmare for any ancient army to confront. The reason for their decline is a simple one having nothing to do with armor or effectiveness: They take skill to use. As more and more of the mid-evil world decided that conscripted armies of untrained masses of soldiers were a better investment of money and time than a highly trained warrior caste, the idea of weapons that any fool could be taught to use quickly were much more appealing than weapons that required years of training to master.

Gunpowder weapons had disadvantages that remained even through the 1800's, as demonstrated by the Native Americans' effectiveness with mounted shortbows against rifled firearms employed by trained marksman. Rate of fire matters.

Still, in terms of massive armed conflict, more troops with comparable weapons that can be quickly and easily replaced usually trumps a skilled though out numbered opponent that has weapons requiring skills that cannot be quickly trained.

But the final word is that the idea of a skilled warrior caste is usually distasteful to monarchs that would like to keep their crown for an indefinite length of time, and the real reason that conscripts were seen as a better solution is, as usual with warfare, political in nature.

 

[Toryn]

I agree with the general theme of this thread...Gunpowder should really be a rare thing in FFH...maybe limited to the national unit for the dwarves?

It seems like longbowmen might be the ideal 'elite' defender and crowsbowmen a sound str 10 unit non-national unit.

 

[SwordofStriker]

speaking of guns, do you know what range a pirate with a handgun shoots?
(in the days when pirates still use swords and defensive daggers)

That would depend on the exact type of hand gun we are talking about. Pirates didn't have a standard of any sort when it came to weaponry. They used whatever they could get their hands on. It's safe to say though, that pirates only used handguns when boarding other ships or when being boarded, and would be using them at point blank range and a little further. Keep in mind that there isn't much room on the deck of a ship, so they'd be fairly close right from the start.

Flintlock muskets for example (which came about in the early 1600's) had an effective range of 40-100 meters. Pistols would have been significantly less. I would guess anything over 10 meters would be out of the question. That's just flintlocks, and there were also the matchlock, wheellock, snaplock, snaphance, and miquelet firearms that were used primarily in the 200 years or so before the flintlock.

It wasn't until the late 1800's that firearm and munition technology advanced enough to consistently have very accurate weapons, and the golden age of pirates had long since past.

 

[it-ogo]

Longbows:...

I am sure that:

- Crossbows are capable of barrage (with some ammo) though it is usually ineffective because of low rate of fire. (Arcing fire means barrage because aimed arcing fire usually is a kind of hunting tale.)

- Crossbows are much better then longbows against any armor. (Yes, there are different crossbows, longbows, armor, ammo etc. but in very most cases that is). BTW starting energy of heavy crossbow ammo is 400J which is good for contemporary police shortgun.

- Arquebuses are much less complex and difficult to produce then best crossbows.

Some info: Longbow arrows are very difficult to balance. Longbowman was good only with his own arrows (which he used in training). With other arrows he is several times worse (in aimed shot). That is not what I call flexibility. Crossbow ammo easy to make universal.