Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
I'm sorry but actually most of units are linear. Hmm, perhaps you could post early draft of yours ideas about unit roster?
Improvements in the unit roster
- Thread starter AbsintheRed
- Start date
AbsintheRed
Deity
Oh, sry, wasn't clear enough. I meant linear progression of strength (and bonuses to some extent) inside the separate lines.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Actually I was already considering both the Composite Bowman name for the 2nd tier and the Drill promotion for some archery units, but not yet sure.
A new promotion similar to the one you suggested isn't totally out of the question either.
Any more opinions about these things?
I'm a little torn about Longbowman too. Was trying to read more about them, and not really sure...
What's the general opinion, should we have it as a special unit or UU for England, or leave it the way it is now (with a potential Longbowman class for everyone) with the English/Welsh version coming earlier?
IMO the second would be better for gameplay, with a unique alternative to defensive archers in the midgame. But if it's totally ahistorical to have longbows in continental Europe, than it's probably not worth it.
El Bogus
Prince
I'd like to leave it the way it's now. I don't think it's too ahistoric for the continent to have Longbows, too.
Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
Longbowman definitely should be English only UU, it was based on unique social developments of Yeomanry in England. Longbows were never used in continental Europe.
That's not true, they weren't widely used due to the commitment needed to train sufficiently skilled archers, but they were still used in many campaigns and battles. The French attempted to train their own longbows to deal with the superiority of the England in the HYW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franc-archer), and they were used by some companies in Hungary and Italy.
The fact they were only widely used in England doesn't mean you should remove them from other civs - that just reduces the choice facing the player which is bad for gameplay. The large scale use of longbows was a cultural choice, so why not let players choose their own culture and approach to warfare?
AbsintheRed
Deity
Would love to hear more opinions on this, as I'm going back and forth.
If you have a preference but don't want to add anything, just vote with likes to one of the 2 above posts!
If you have a preference but don't want to add anything, just vote with likes to one of the 2 above posts!
Force44
King
Few longbowmen show up in the mod as it currently stands. So the unhistorical argument does not put too much weight on the scale as far as I'm concerned.
The longbow was a viable option for many more mediëval armies than just the English and Welsh.
My guess is it was more of a coïncidence than a necessity that they were not universally applied throughout Europe during the middle ages.
so +1 to longbows for all.
The longbow was a viable option for many more mediëval armies than just the English and Welsh.
My guess is it was more of a coïncidence than a necessity that they were not universally applied throughout Europe during the middle ages.
so +1 to longbows for all.
Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
French failed in this venture, and hungarians weren't what we talking about. Perhaps I should say that there was almost none longbows in continental Europe? And about culture, if we going this way why for example all nations cannot train catarapath? Civ UU is in some way deterministic incorporating that civ cultural and social make up.
Edit: by that kind of longbow I mean bow with draw weight of about 180lbs (80kg), longbows used on continent had, what max two thrids of such draw?
Edit: by that kind of longbow I mean bow with draw weight of about 180lbs (80kg), longbows used on continent had, what max two thrids of such draw?
Last edited:
Not so much a coincidence, more a cultural thing. It took a lot of training to make a good longbowman, and without standing armies that had to be incorporated into society - the English gave men time off to train with the longbow. It was much easier to just give a peasant a crossbow and tell them to point and shoot, which is why many nations went for this option even though it was inferior.
Similar to how knighthood and chivalry were more developed in the west than the east, as they were supported by a society which valued them and this devoted time and effort to training, arming and equipping knights. No one has any problem with the Arabs and ERE having access to knights, even though they didn't have the same level of heavy cavalry as the western nations at the time.
Not sure why you are ignoring Hungary, other than because they disprove your argument. I can agree that there weren't many other longbow users in Europe outside England, but that was because other countries didn't generally devote the same level of training to archery. Doesn't alter the fact that they could easily choose to do so if they wanted.
Ultimately it's a gameplay choice. The ERE and Islamic nations never implemented feudal systems, but we don't try and stop them having access to the civic. The system of gameplay should be as non deterministic as possible. Which is why although only the ERE can train cataphracts, every nation can train heavy lancers, even those with no history of cavalry. Or do you also want to remove heavy lancers from the Norse and Danish rosters?
Fine, then just accept that 'longbowman' is a generic term for soldiers using advanced bows with higher draw weights. Doesn't have to be the yew longbow used by the English, it can easily be the recurved bow used in the east, but they did undoubtedly exist.
The higher draw weight of the English longbow can be reflected in a stronger UU for England, just like the greater effectiveness of cataphracts over other forms of armoured lancers is reflected in the ERE having a stronger UU.
Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
I'm not ignoring Hungary, I was simply unable to find any sources about they foot longbow archers. They were famous for they horse archery an later gunpowder troops. So I'm forced to conclude that any foot longbowman must be rare and not widespread.
Problem is that historically crossbow replaced longbows on continent due to greater power and much easier training. Only English were able to match crossbow with they longbows due to existing multi generation tradition of archery.
But okay let's ignore history for sake of gameplay, what do you see as longbow role? Anti cav is out, they were weaker than crossbow. Anti infantry? Skirmishers?
Problem is that historically crossbow replaced longbows on continent due to greater power and much easier training. Only English were able to match crossbow with they longbows due to existing multi generation tradition of archery.
But okay let's ignore history for sake of gameplay, what do you see as longbow role? Anti cav is out, they were weaker than crossbow. Anti infantry? Skirmishers?
I don't see how that's a problem for the game - as I've said ad infinitum, the whole point of RFC is to recreate history. No reason a player can't decide that their civilisation can't develop it's own multi generation tradition of archery, other than a pedantic desire to be deterministic in choices.
What are you talking about? Longbows have been proven to be vastly superior to crossbows against cavalry. Longbows were more powerful than all but the most expensive arbalests, and could fire at a much greater rate with a higher range. Neither longbow nor crossbow could penetrate plate armour, but the ability of longbows to start firing earlier and put more arrows on target over a given period of time meant they could injure and scare more horses and be more likely to break up a charge, as they did at Crecy.
The role of longbows should be as they are now - an archery unit which is stronger than the arbalestier, with more first strikes and with bonuses against heavy cavalry and heavy infantry, as well as bonuses from hills.
Osakasayama
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
- Messages
- 67
How prevalent were longbows in continental Europe? Did it actually go as far as replacing Arbalests and Arquebusiers?
If they weren't much of a deal outside of small-scale contingents, they could as well be set as mercenary units.
If they weren't much of a deal outside of small-scale contingents, they could as well be set as mercenary units.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 759
I'm definitely in favor of keeping longbows as a general thing; however, I would like to see incentives for England to use them more than other countries. Based on the two points above, I see two possibilities.
- Longbow units cost food to produce (representing the time investment needed to train a person to use a longbow vs. a standard bow)
- Longbow units can only be built after a prerequisite building (archery range, perhaps?)
cost of that era's heavy cavalry. For English longbow UUs, these restrictions would be loosened or removed entirely, so every other country would have trouble fielding a large longbow army, while English could afford to put more in the field.
gilgames
Priest-King
Idk what is this hysteria about longbow. We had this unit since the beginning, longbow goes a way back. And it was fine, had its role and nobody built entire armies of it. I really donno whats the problem here. The unit is not OP nor unbeatable. Maybe a lil asjustment to do the same in the new rooster or to make it more historical thats all.
Probaly tell the english ai that he can attack with it too.
Probaly tell the english ai that he can attack with it too.
AbsintheRed
Deity
There is no hysteria at all, only a little debate. Which is probably good for the mod.
Anyway, I think I will keep Longbowmen, will stay more or less as they are now. It seems that's the more popular version anyway.
Apart from all the reasons already said on both sides, there is one more pro-longbowman:
Since it's in the mod for a very long time, we already have unique art for the generic longbowman for many civs. Byzantium, Arabia, Hungary, Norse, Russia, Ottoman for example. (Also for the unique/barb/mercenary longbow units, but most of those would stay either way)
While aesthetics is not the deciding factor, it would be kinda sad if we had to say farewell to all those.
Anyway, I think I will keep Longbowmen, will stay more or less as they are now. It seems that's the more popular version anyway.
Apart from all the reasons already said on both sides, there is one more pro-longbowman:
Since it's in the mod for a very long time, we already have unique art for the generic longbowman for many civs. Byzantium, Arabia, Hungary, Norse, Russia, Ottoman for example. (Also for the unique/barb/mercenary longbow units, but most of those would stay either way)
While aesthetics is not the deciding factor, it would be kinda sad if we had to say farewell to all those.
Last edited:
AbsintheRed
Deity
It's quite fitting probably.
Crossbows/Arbalests do not need it, as they didn't have to get as much training as Longbowmans.
And earlier Archers do not need it because they are before Castles (which is a prereq for the Archery Range). The same less-training reason is true here as well.
I also agree that they should be more expensive, but much more efficient for a couple roles than Arbalests.
Ogi123
The End is the Beginning is the End
You are contradicting yourself. Is mod function to recreate history witch is deterministic or give player free hand in determining course of it's chosen nation?
They weren't superior to crossbow against cavalry. English victories in hundred years war were effect of excellent tactics not some mythological longbow. I mean at Patay English don't had time to setup due to it being meeting engagement and were crushed. And longbows themselves were weaker than arbalest, just compare weight draw. Any excuses about rate of fire forgot that longbowman cannot sustain it for long because of exhaustion.
Anyway if we want keep longbow in game perhaps we should find it new role? English longbowman can be stronger than arbalest, we can fluff they higher base str as better tactical usage. But continental ones needs something else, they definetively shouldn't be stronger than arbalest.
Patay was more an example of poor generalship, separating an army and sending an ambush force which was itself ambushed. You could just as easily point to the Second Battle of Kosovo as an example of where Hungarian arbalests failed to make any dent on Ottoman heavy or light cavalry, despite supplementing them with early handguns.
Draw weight is also far too basic as arbalests had a much shorter draw length and lath, so couldn't transfer all the draw weight to the bolt. Both arbalests and longbows achieved similar firing speeds, but longbow arrows were around twice as heavy as crossbow bolts. It's simple physics - Energy = mass * velocity. A projectile twice as heavy moving at the same speed has twice as much energy, making it stronger. Windlass spun arbalests would have exceeded the energy delivered by a longbow, but at the cost of even slower reload times compared to belt and claw span reload mechanisms.
Exhaustion was a factor, but ultimately there are no records of trained longbowmen being exhausted before loosing all their arrows. In contrast, records of Crecy and Agincourt show that trained longbowmen were able sustain fire until their arrows were exhausted and still retained sufficient energy to fight.
As I said before, longbows should stronger than the arbalestier, with more first strikes and with bonuses against heavy cavalry and heavy infantry, as well as bonuses from hills. With the English longbows having more first strikes and the additional bonus against cavalry, as they do now, to reflect the superior use of stakes and longer range of the yew longbow. Pretty much as they currently are in the mod, albeit with a 25% bonus against heavy infantry as well.
Force44
King
The whole mention of first strikes for longbows always stroke me as a bit silly.
(please correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall)
In civ4 a succesful first strike negates a round of damage. So if any unit should receive a first strike it should be heavily armored units.
In the battle of Knights vs longbows (in civ) I envision Knights receiving first strikes.
Furthermore hills give a 20% defence bonus and flatland receives a -10% defence bonus.
Since Knights receive no bonus on terrain defence they actually are 10% stronger on flatlands (simulates improved mobility).
The longbows will turn out (relatively) superior on hills, especially on defence. (simulates high ground and fortifications)
The point I'm trying to make is that it is a bit pointless to try to put all the attributes of a longbow into one unit because its strengths and weaknesses in civ4 as in real life were dependent on the units (opposition and circumstances) it faced and coorporated with.
(please correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall)
In civ4 a succesful first strike negates a round of damage. So if any unit should receive a first strike it should be heavily armored units.
In the battle of Knights vs longbows (in civ) I envision Knights receiving first strikes.
Furthermore hills give a 20% defence bonus and flatland receives a -10% defence bonus.
Since Knights receive no bonus on terrain defence they actually are 10% stronger on flatlands (simulates improved mobility).
The longbows will turn out (relatively) superior on hills, especially on defence. (simulates high ground and fortifications)
The point I'm trying to make is that it is a bit pointless to try to put all the attributes of a longbow into one unit because its strengths and weaknesses in civ4 as in real life were dependent on the units (opposition and circumstances) it faced and coorporated with.
