English Longbowmen? Really?

[KahunaGod]

The funniest thing is that a longbow has a shorter range than a crossbow. The advantage was it's rate of fire (several times faster) and superior accuracy. It also had the disadvantage of requiring it's user to train constantly from a young age in order to master it.

Please tell me your kidding about the range thing. Crossbows were a short range armor piercing weapon.

 

[pickle]

crossbows could pierce armour at a longer range than longbows, which is what he said, the problem was the shorter and less aerodynamic bolt was a lot less accurate at range, so you would be less likely to hit your target.

the longbow having 3 range in game is way off, yes the terrain can often get in the way but given a lot of flat land in the middle ages and england are unstoppable, the only middle age units that can pose a threat to them are knights, but you basically sacrifice a knight for each longbow you kill. anything else gets death rained down on it when it gets close

 

[stormerne]

The mongols recurve was born from the compromise of finding a range weapon capable of accurate fire from horseback. An english longbow has both greater power and range then the mongol recurve. The english longbow was designed to penetrate metal armor including plate, while the mongol recurve was used primarily against leather (maybe some bronze on the rare "noble" at the time).

We agree on this! But that wasn't really my point. The point - which I may not have clearly stated - was the effect using these weapons not on the enemy but on the bowmen themselves (and hence the suggested effect of upgrading in Civ5).

As an archer myself, I find that (even though they're occasionally fun to shoot) the inefficiency of the yew longbow is unquestionable in terms of elasticity (speed of return from distortion). And like all self-bows it stacks badly (non-linear increase in draw weight near full draw). Hence, although it does indeed do all the things you say, it requires a "characteristic physique" in order to achieve those things!

Thus it's conceivable it'd possible to train more bowmen to shoot recurve than longbow from the ground simply because they are not as physically demanding as a longbow and being shorter are easier to manoeuvre on rough ground. Sure they'd not be as effective against metal, but 4,000 longbowmen PLUS another say 8,000 recurve bowmen would have been formidable against almost anything at the time.

 

[markantony]

Please tell me your kidding about the range thing. Crossbows were a short range armor piercing weapon.

Crossbows did have a greater range than longbows. This was countered by there crappy reload time and inaccuracy.

 

[lschnarch]

Just curious... You realize that if realism is the yardstick we're measuring things by and saying "That is RIDICULOUS!" as a result of, then those industrial age artillery are probably shooting about 600 kilometers when they fire, right?...

Ah, that's really a strong argument to have the man-powered medevial longbow shoot at the same distance.

 

[AfterShafter]

Ah, that's really a strong argument to have the man-powered medevial longbow shoot at the same distance.

There's no argument there. I just think it's silly to get upset over something being unrealistically scaled compared to another thing that's already ridiculously scaled. Why so worried about realism compared to artillery? Artillery as it is implemented now is far from realistic, and in general, military in this game takes *tremendous* liberties with realism to make it interesting from a strategy perspective. I mean, if realism is such a major concern for you, shouldn't you be complaining that artillery shoots further than 1/50th of a tile, and longbowmen 1/600th? You may as well be looking at a painting of dogs playing cards and pick to criticize the realism of one dog having five aces in his hand.

 

[Helmling]

I'm going to point something out here that's bothered me forever.

Having separate archery units at all is what's ridiculous. Archers were PART OF an army in any epoch they were used.

 

[Humakty]

I'm going to point something out here that's bothered me forever.

Having separate archery units at all is what's ridiculous. Archers were PART OF an army in any epoch they were used.

You sum up all my dreams, to create army corps from combining various units, and a nice tactical resolution to go with it. (even somethin' basic and automated, I'm not asking for much, just enougth to keep my gamer's dignity....)

 

[Zydor]

You sum up all my dreams, to create army corps from combining various units, and a nice tactical resolution to go with it. (even somethin' basic and automated, I'm not asking for much, just enougth to keep my gamer's dignity....)

Works for me ..... at the end of the day, we can go round in ever decreasing circles with the realism thing. The Military around the world spend hundreds of millions every year on War Game Simulators together with dozens, arguably hundreds of individuals manipulating the system and results to gain a military advantage, and even with todays enhanced computing power are no where near a "perfect" resolution.

There is more chance of a snowball surving in Hell, than a Games House getting any where near close, and can only be inspired by, not emulate the military.

All an obvious statement for sure ..... but the old adage that an essential pre-req of playing games is a suspension of disbelief is never more true .... life's too short

Regards
Zy

 

[Vordeo]

Conversation's been had before.

Longbows far outrange crossbows (as an effective weapon, anyways) and had more range than early cannon (pot-de-fer). Granted, cannons grew to outrange longbows soon after.

Gameplay and realism are both important considerations.

The main thing most people know about longbows is that they've got excellent range, range better than with other normal bows of the time. Thus, the obvious way for the CiV team to differentiate the Longbowman from other crossbows is to just give them more range. Is the fact that Longbowmen have more range than cannons unrealistic? Yes, but gameplay-wise it's a solid choice, IMO, and realism in the civ series kinda dies when you take into account the fact that Gandhi survives several millenia as ruler of the Indian empire.

 

[Zachriel]

I'm going to point something out here that's bothered me forever.

Having separate archery units at all is what's ridiculous. Archers were PART OF an army in any epoch they were used.

Note archers were organized separately, and subject to flanking attack.

 

[Rudster816]

Longbowmen are good for very specific situations. I once had a water channel one tile wide at times between me and Bismark. He warred me fairly on, right after he get a decent mass of his pikes. By wars end (which was 100's of years later, I think I had Arty by the time I crossed the channel and captured his cities) I had probably killed 50-60+ units with my Longbowen and Ship of the lines. Between him having his units embark stupidly (and this was before I realized I could just move on to embarked units to kill them) and the fact that he didnt build any range units, it was just an absolute slaughter. Was really fun to play though, realizing that I had maintained a good 20:1 unit kill ratio was awesome.

On the contrast, if your bows get stuck in forested terrains, with no good hills to sit on, there completely useless. if there arent any good choke points, it can be hard to get the concentration of fire you need. That coupled with the fact it takes 3-4 hits to kill units, means that if you dont get the right terrain\map layout, they are crippled. They are also arent very good at offensives at all, because you very rarely get to choose the terrain.

 

[anti_strunt]

When will people start complaining about the Arab Camel Archer? That unit isn't even based on anything that ever really existed. The Caliphate didn't conquer the world mounted on Camels, and certainly not as mounted archers. It's just some crazy borderline ethnic stereotyping...

 

[Helmling]

Note archers were organized separately, and subject to flanking attack.

But they weren't a separate unit on the scale that units are organized in Civ. Yes, their positions could be flanked--and it would be great if Civ combat had the option to control at the tactical level like that--but it's, in my opinion, a mistake to try to extrapolate those tactics onto the big map. That's the problem that makes it necessary for them making archers that can shoot over mountains.

It's absurd and it subtracts from the suspension of disbelief in the game.

 

[Zydor]

Note archers were organized separately, and subject to flanking attack.

At Agincourt the English archers were protected from a calvalry flank attack by the dense woods, practically impassible to heavy cavalry. At the opening moves the main French Cavalry charged the Longbowmen as they were seen by the French as the main threat. The French Cavalry were slaughtered because they ran into long stakes in the ground placed there by the Longbowmen for just such a move, and could not get at the longbowmen before they had a chance to let loose several salvoes of arrows.

What was left of the calvalry retreated, but ahead of them were now several hundred panicking riderless horses who bolted into the main French force of men-at-arms. That caused mayhem, and casualties to the main French force were substantial from their own horses. At that point it was all over, almost before it began, the English main force advanced onto the French who were by now bogged in up to their knees in mud, and the English longbowmen got out their local defence weapons - axes et al - and went into the French main force from the flank.

The combination of the longbowmen charge from the flank and main force advance onto the french in the mud, meant it was a very short battle 2-3 hours by all accounts. The English longbowmen, whilst certainly justly credited with destroying the French Cavalry and igniting mayhem, were on the day more noted for charging the main french men-at-arms who were by now stuck in the mud, and easy prey for the Longbowmens axes. In reality, apart from the devestating opening salvoes on the calvary, the longbowmen fired few arrows - they didnt have to. The whole thing became a slaughter.

It was not quite the stuff of legends that Popularist History labels it with arrows raining down left right and centre, although if you were the French cavalry you would have furvently agreed with the popularist accounts

Regards
Zy

 

[Helmling]

You sum up all my dreams, to create army corps from combining various units, and a nice tactical resolution to go with it. (even somethin' basic and automated, I'm not asking for much, just enougth to keep my gamer's dignity....)

I keep thinking and thinking about my own mod.

In it, there will be different types of units: infantry, special, covert, civilian, naval, air. It will be 1- unit of each type per tile. When you discover archery, then your infantry units can be equipped with squads of archers and gain a ranged attack--but only to attack the next tile--never, ever any further. That ability will persist with gunpowder and above. Siege-weapon discoveries will be incorporated in a similar way. No more separate catapults and artillery.

Takes too much away from the joy of combat, you say? But that's where special units and covert come in. Cavalry, armor and helicopters would be special (I know, a lot of my arguments about integrating units could apply to cavalry, but there are enough uses for lone cavalry and enough historical justification that I want to keep them separate) and could move with an army or separately. Covert would be stealthy and not visible on a map. Some would be spies, but it would also open up the possibility of assassins and special forces like SEALs and such.

Yeah, now I just need to learn how to mod and find a whole ton of time to do it.

 

[Zachriel]

But they weren't a separate unit on the scale that units are organized in Civ. Yes, their positions could be flanked--and it would be great if Civ combat had the option to control at the tactical level like that--but it's, in my opinion, a mistake to try to extrapolate those tactics onto the big map. That's the problem that makes it necessary for them making archers that can shoot over mountains.

It's absurd and it subtracts from the suspension of disbelief in the game.

Whether you agree with this decision or not, the game is depicting the tactical and strategic on the same map. That means flanking opportunities. As Zydor points out, proper use of terrain to protect ranged units is essential. On open, dry terrain, knights would flank and overrun archers. But on marshy ground, with slower movement, against fortified archers, knights and footmen are vulnerable.