Longbowman - is it historically accurate?

[Alex123]

Hi all,

I ve been reading through medieval history and noticed that using of Longbowmen in the Civilization IV game is not historically accurate. Firstly, Longbows were used mainly by Enlgand, and all other armies were using Crossbows. Secondly, Longbow appeared well after heavy armoured Knights started to dominate battle fields, First massive use of Longbowmen on international scene was the Battle of Cresy, 1346, which is recognised by many historicists as a sunset of knights era. But in the game Longbowman could become available even before knights and to all of the nations. In my opinion this makes game a bit unbalanced and doesn't let the nation who developed the knights first a domination, not to mention a historical confusion. What do you think?

 

[Paw]

I think developing modern armor in the 1700's is crazy, but hey, sometimes in games I play it happens.

Civ gameplay isn't completely historically accurate. The longbow does a nice job in that it's an excellent city defender upgrade from the archer pre-gunpowder, but you are correct that they were largely an English only thing.

That said, in-game, knights are actually a fairly strong counter to longbowmen. They have a high base strength and are immune to first strikes. However, many players don't tend to beeline knights because they're prioritizing other techs.

 

[G-Max]

Historical inaccuracy in a Civilization game? NO WAY!

 

[Alex123]

I think developing modern armor in the 1700's is crazy, but hey, sometimes in games I play it happens.

You right but time scale is a quite a different thing

Civ gameplay isn't completely historically accurate. The longbow does a nice job in that it's an excellent city defender upgrade from the archer pre-gunpowder

I remember early versions where once you have knights, you can quickly conquer all pre-knight nations, and only appearance of pikemen and musket-men makes the balance again. And it was historically correct. The same rule applies to Cavalry/Rifelman, Tank/Infantry, Modern Armour/ Mech Infantry, but not Knight/Longbowman any more as Longbowman always gets into the game before Knights.
, but you are correct that they were largely an English only thing.

They have a high base strength and are immune to first strikes. However, many players don't tend to beeline knights because they're prioritizing other techs.

I wasn't able to pick up what I didn't quite like in version IV, and that probably it, medieval era lost a bit of a game-play. Who already seen version 5, is it the same there?

 

[revengeofmakno]

Longbows in the game don't just represent the English longbow. There were composite bows of capabilities similar to the English longbow in use in many places. The less powerful "archer" unit represents the shorter bows common in ancient times.
There are a lot of units in Civilization that are not perfect representations of anything exactly but approximate a number of things from an era.
Even knights are not just "knights". There was plenty of heavily armoured cavalry around long after the battle of Crecy and they were very effective when used properly. In fact, the amount of armour they wore continued to increase for more than a century afterwards but increasingly, they weren't drawn just from the social class of "knights" anymore.

 

[Derakon]

In general CIV favors giving you strong defensive units earlier than it gives you the units that can beat those defenders. The Archer is generally the second military unit unlocked (by the AI, anyway, assuming they don't start with 'em!); Longbowmen come well before anything that can reasonably hope to take them on; Machineguns show up well before Infantry/Artillery do. Presumably this is to reduce the military advantage being first to a strong attacking tech gives you, as otherwise you'd just race to e.g. Bureaucracy and then steamroll everyones' Archers with your Macemen.

 

[Farm Boy]

I rather like the bog that is medieval warfare. It's nice that the different "eras" in Civ 4 have different leanings without that personality being cemented in place.

Ancient war with chariots/axes is often pretty successful but too much can stunt/collapse your civ even if you win. The classical period with swords/cats/elephants is often a bloodbath. Medieval warfare is generally a slog due to cultural defenses, walls, and castles. Warfare picks back up again in the renaissance. Warfare changes again with flight.

There can be plenty of iWin monopoly moments(cannons with drafted muskets for example) that it is kinda nice the different ages have some personality. Plus, if you really need to war during the medieval period, you can, it just takes some more effort!

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Am I the only one that thinks that knights should be unlockable at feudalism?

 

[Ataxerxes]

Am I the only one that thinks that knights should be unlockable at feudalism?

Historically, I agree with you. Knight should be unlockable at Feudalism.

Game balance, I'm not sure. Getting Knights that early might make Feudalism like Steel, a sudden tremendous military advantage. This would really improve the Byzantines with 12-strength Knights at Feudalsim. Might make the Byzantines like Rome - get the UU and kill somebody.

 

[G-Max]

Might make the Byzantines like Rome - get the UU and kill everybody.

Fixed

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Historically, I agree with you. Knight should be unlockable at Feudalism.

Game balance, I'm not sure. Getting Knights that early might make Feudalism like Steel, a sudden tremendous military advantage. This would really improve the Byzantines with 12-strength Knights at Feudalsim. Might make the Byzantines like Rome - get the UU and kill somebody.

Maybe make knights require feudalism and steel? And then move steel to be invented earlier (steel was available in the middle ages, idk why they made it a Renaissance era tech to unlock cannons that didn't even use steel much of the time).

Gameplay wise knights are still countered by pikemen.

 

[Addict2010]

Yes, it would have been better to make the longbowman a unique unit for the English civ.. Long bows were made out of Yew trees which are plentiful on the island of Great Britain, but less so in France, the main recipient of their fury in the 100 Years War.

 

[revengeofmakno]

The concept of armoured heavy cavalry is what the "knight" is. I think we have to forget the concept of social class or feudalism in association with it because many cultures had heavy armoured cavalry.

Civilization does not give us the ancient version of heavy cavalry as was common in the middle east. Instead, the horse archer unit is there to represent everything from a light scouting/skirmishing horseman through to Alexander's Companion cavalry and up to Bactrians with full cataphract armour. That was a serious compromise. Perhaps, it is ok as cavalry of that era did not have stirrups and thus could not engage in the same kind of impactful charge that was possible after the stirrup came in. Nonetheless, that is a lot of very different cavalry types lumped into one package.

So the "knight" unit has to represent everything post stirrup from Gothic and Lombard heavy cavalry through Norman and Crusader mailed cavalry up to the full plate armoured cavalry of the early 1500s. That covers a long period of time and pinning down the best technology to unlock it is not easy.

As has been discussed elsewhere the Mongol Keshik is oddly placed as it performed exceptionally well against the heavy cavalry that it fought but in this game, it is run over by knights.

Civilization would have to create several more unit types in order to adequately represent historic unit development. They started to do that with the curaissier unit and the Numidian cavalry is realistic but several more types would be required and that would make the game even more complex. I'd be fine with that but even if you did it, the combat system in Civ4 or Civ5 doesn't do justice to battlefield tactics so it is not clear how much it would meaningfully change the course of the game. It does and has made for interesting mod possibilities.

Yes, it would have been better to make the longbowman a unique unit for the English civ.. Long bows were made out of Yew trees which are plentiful on the island of Great Britain, but less so in France, the main recipient of their fury in the 100 Years War.

If you make longbows a unit unique to the English then you have to have yet another unit for the many cultures that used composite bows that had comparable battlefield performance.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you make longbows a unit unique to the English then you have to have yet another unit for the many cultures that used composite bows that had comparable battlefield performance.

Spot on. To reference the Mongols again, their dog-piss leather bows outperformed English longbows in almost every important measure, and could be fired from horseback.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

How about;

Knights at steel, feudalism and maybe a new stirrups tech, requires iron and horses
Lancers at steel and some advanced tech, requires iron and horses
Upgraded version of horse archers to tepresen the powerful mongol, Arabian, Turkish and other horse archers of the medieval era at stirrups and composite bows, requires horses

Btw, Calvary by Napoleanic warfare times should not be more powerful than musketmen.

 

[revengeofmakno]

How about;

Knights at steel, feudalism and maybe a new stirrups tech, requires iron and horses
Lancers at steel and some advanced tech, requires iron and horses
Upgraded version of horse archers to tepresen the powerful mongol, Arabian, Turkish and other horse archers of the medieval era at stirrups and composite bows, requires horses

Btw, Calvary by Napoleanic warfare times should not be more powerful than musketmen.

Napoleanic cavalry would make short work of a 1500 or 1600 arquebusier but an 1800 musketman is indeed a very different story. The game is a bit strange in that area. We get grenadiers who might be a specific kind of 1750 infantry but they can attack and win against "riflemen" who are what? 1870 ? There is a bit of a disconnect there.

With steel already giving cannons, that would seem too late in the game for "knights" but maybe steel should be necessary for cuirassier which it is not now. Cuirassier look to be approximate post 1550 heavy cavalry up to 1850 with "cavalry" being say US Civil War to 1920. How would you distinguish lancers from cuirassier in game terms?

I like the idea of stirrup as a tech as it was a major military game changer and it would cleanly open the door to some kind of cavalry between horse archers and knights.